Is God real?

[Monk Of Reason]

If you don't believe in the God of the Bible or are unsure about what you believe concerning religion, please feel free to let me know any questions you have and I would love to dialogue with you. All conversation will be conducted in a polite, respectful manner.

I generally have the opinion that religion and god beliefs are an archaic form of social maintanence that we have since outgrew. Its nothing more than fables and supersticion. However it is ingrained in our societies quite firmly.

 

[Windwalker]

Truth, therefore, is not a construct of the mind or relative, but is an external reality which is unchangeable.

While that may be true, all ideas of that Truth are a construct of the mind and relative.

When God created the world he made it good.

Considering creation happens in every moment of every day, then it is all good always. The imagination that creation of this world happened at a fixed point in history, one day it's not there and the next it is, is purely mythological.

The created world originally had no sin, suffering, or death.

Sounds like a magical place with unicorns and flying deer. I don't believe there can be any sort of biological organism that doesn't die. If such a place ever existed or does exist, it is not this world, nor ever was. It would have to be outside of this universe in some other dimension of reality. So it therefore would not pertain to our lives here in this world.

The first man, Adam, and the first woman, Eve, were created in the image of God for the purpose of glorifying him by enjoying him.

This does not strike you as a fanciful story? I recall as a child some adult told me that the reason God created us was because he was lonely and needed our company. You're saying instead that it was because he had a need to have worshippers? What happens if God doesn't get that? Does he dry up? Please explain why God needs worship, or our company? What needs can God have and still be God?

When God created Adam and Eve, he had a “works based” relationship with them.

And if you have a child will you model your relationship with them like this yourself? That if they dare to make a mistake you will throw them them out into the ally behind your house where they will suffer and eventually die?

I honestly do not understand why people imagine this story is a literal historical account and not a metaphor. If it's literal, then why don't you act this way to your children, if you have or will have any? If it's literal then it says something not very good, considering we would never do that to those we love. In fact we encourage our children to make their own mistakes in order to learn and grow. Or are you saying our natural state is a fixed, static, non-growing, non-evolving object, like a rock?

The result of Adam and Eve’s sin was the entrance of sin into creation and the loss of perfect relationship with God. Because God is perfect and cannot abide (or live with) sin, he expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden.

And yet, according to Paul, "In him we live and move and have our being". How do you reconcile that statement with yours that says we cannot live and move and have our being in him because sin must be outside of him?

And since you are talking metaphysics here, if God is Infinite, then where is "outside" God? God cannot be Infinite in being and there be anywhere that God is not. If there is an outside of God place, such as this world, or a hell of some kind, then God is finite as there are boundaries. Do you believe God is a finite, limited being? You have to if what you say here is true.

Yet God had a plan to send a Savior into the world to redeem humanity and pay the price of their disobedience with the blood of his own Son, Jesus Christ. All of the Old Testament scriptures tell the story of redemption through types and shadows (hence the sacrificial systems, Israel’s’ typological theocratic monarchy, the prophets, etc.) heralding the coming of Christ.

And none of this strikes you as a mythological story to talk about spiritual awakenings, rather than being some actual record of actual history?

 

[NoGuru]

I generally have the opinion that religion and god beliefs are an archaic form of social maintanence that we have since outgrew. Its nothing more than fables and supersticion. However it is ingrained in our societies quite firmly.

Let's set "God" aside for a moment.

Having children of my own now, it's amazing to watch them go through the same discovery process as I did when I was young. As a father I try to council my oldest on this danger or that, and he is bound and determined to do everything the hard way and not heed any council, just like me. It makes me think back to the words of my father and how "I should've listened" then.

Imagine when you were young and talking with a group of friend about something your parents said. In the group, well you all knew better and parents were just idiots who didn't understand how things were now.

Going back to the idea of a "God." None of the above anecdote is checkmate, not by any means... but the (thousands, tens of thousands, millions) of years of spiritual beliefs in something greater shouldn't be discarded because we can now put a bug in a box, zap it and booya! Science! Well since I can test everything now and can not test these "feelings" or "spiritual matters" (which tests have been done on to an extent and are intriguingly classified), doesn't mean we simply dismiss it as delusion.

I feel as if the greatest crime against our race at this time is the extreme polarization of topics. God vs. Science, Black vs. White, Creation vs. Evolution... the path you walk is not determined by your left foot or right, it's somewhere in the middle. You can profess the church of Left or the community of right, but you're just making a fuss of things when neither polarity can claim possession of truth. Neither side is necessarily wrong, but they have only one half of the answer.

While that may be true, all ideas of that Truth are a construct of the mind and relative.

This is more accurate than anything. Having fought in a war, I questioned wtf I was doing, fighting farmers protecting their land. It got me thinking about what I would do if someone invaded my homeland and tried to force a government upon me, would I not do the exact thing these guys were doing?

Furthermore who was right? Was it me for obeying and acting on a "worthy" cause of freeing a people? Or was it my combatant? Truth is truly in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Let's set "God" aside for a moment.

Having children of my own now, it's amazing to watch them go through the same discovery process as I did when I was young. As a father I try to council my oldest on this danger or that, and he is bound and determined to do everything the hard way and not heed any council, just like me. It makes me think back to the words of my father and how "I should've listened" then.

Imagine when you were young and talking with a group of friend about something your parents said. In the group, well you all knew better and parents were just idiots who didn't understand how things were now.

Going back to the idea of a "God." None of the above anecdote is checkmate, not by any means... but the (thousands, tens of thousands, millions) of years of spiritual beliefs in something greater shouldn't be discarded because we can now put a bug in a box, zap it and booya! Science! Well since I can test everything now and can not test these "feelings" or "spiritual matters" (which tests have been done on to an extent and are intriguingly classified), doesn't mean we simply dismiss it as delusion.

I feel as if the greatest crime against our race at this time is the extreme polarization of topics. God vs. Science, Black vs. White, Creation vs. Evolution... the path you walk is not determined by your left foot or right, it's somewhere in the middle. You can profess the church of Left or the community of right, but you're just making a fuss of things when neither polarity can claim possession of truth. Neither side is necessarily wrong, but they have only one half of the answer.

Its not because we can put a bug in a box and zap it. Its because we now know that there is a whole world of people with different ideas. What makes Islam more or less correct compared to christianity? Or Either of them compared to Buddhism or Hinduism? What of the litterally tens of thousnads of styles of pagan and tribal religions? It seems very obvious that religion itself has no idea what god is if there is a god at all. We can trace the beliefs of people through the ages and across the world. We see how such belief systems evolve over time. Many of them attempted to explain nature when they didn't have any other means to do. Other served as a social structure that we now have government to do. Along side these religious beliefs are fables and myths that are now considere false.

I am not interested nor inclined to beileve people of the past on spiritual matters. They lived short lives steeped in ignorance that we have just barely clawed out way out of. Children go through discoveries that often parents see in themselves. I agree with that. However that stops at death. What a man who died 300 yerars ago at 42 without literacy knowledge of history or explanation for most of the natural world shouldn't shape how I see the world. Even less so to a man who supposidly died in his 30's as a martyr 2000 years ago who not only didn't write a single page of the holy book of his followers....neither did his follower for at least 50-70 years.

Now setting that argument aside we evolve over time. Even if they believed it it doesn't make it right. People were racist a few years ago. Some still are. It is very likely that you are going to be more racist, sexist or homophobic than your children. I"m not claiming that you are by any means but just as generation to generation trend this is the case. We don't burn people alive for being witches anymore. We don't allow slavery anymore. We still have a long way to go but lest not forget how far we've come. Only things supported by evidence are valid. Everything else is heresay.

 

[NoGuru]

Its not because we can put a bug in a box and zap it. Its because we now know that there is a whole world of people with different ideas. What makes Islam more or less correct compared to christianity? Or Either of them compared to Buddhism or Hinduism? What of the litterally tens of thousnads of styles of pagan and tribal religions? It seems very obvious that religion itself has no idea what god is if there is a god at all. We can trace the beliefs of people through the ages and across the world. We see how such belief systems evolve over time. Many of them attempted to explain nature when they didn't have any other means to do. Other served as a social structure that we now have government to do. Along side these religious beliefs are fables and myths that are now considere false.

I agree with this completely.

I am not interested nor inclined to beileve people of the past on spiritual matters. They lived short lives steeped in ignorance that we have just barely clawed out way out of. Children go through discoveries that often parents see in themselves. I agree with that. However that stops at death. What a man who died 300 yerars ago at 42 without literacy knowledge of history or explanation for most of the natural world shouldn't shape how I see the world. Even less so to a man who supposidly died in his 30's as a martyr 2000 years ago who not only didn't write a single page of the holy book of his followers....neither did his follower for at least 50-70 years.

This is where I somewhat part with you on ideas. Now to believe any one sect as having 100% of the truth I feel is foolish, but when so many, from all walks of life having completely distinct cultures, have a similar notion, I think it unwise to completely dismiss the notion.

Imagine if you lost your sight. You can't see the sky anymore but know what it looked like. So you ask ten people what the weather is like outside. One person in a panic tells you it's the end of the world, tornado's, hail, rain and snow and lightning all over the place. The next says the sun is peaking through here and there and there's a bit of rain. This goes on and on to where you've heard all ten people describe outside. Now while all the claims seem to be contradictory as to the details, the one common theme is clouds. Now it's nothing you can prove, or even disprove, but having so many accounts, I would imagine you could safely conclude there were clouds in the sky.

I would contend also that we are no different on our "lived short lives steeped in ignorance." Even if you live 100 years, that's pretty short in contrast to how old our earth is. Ignorance? How could any one of us say that we are not so? Just because we've learned things on a exponential scale, it's all relative. Imagine an alien race chillin in the upper atmosphere. I imagine we look pretty ignorant to much of the universe.

Now I can't say there's a God, a cool guy in a chair takin care of me, or something that created all you see around you. If there was however, I imagine such a being wouldn't be hanging around telling mankind what's what. That would take away from the joys and pains of life.

Now setting that argument aside we evolve over time. Even if they believed it it doesn't make it right. People were racist a few years ago. Some still are. It is very likely that you are going to be more racist, sexist or homophobic than your children. I"m not claiming that you are by any means but just as generation to generation trend this is the case. We don't burn people alive for being witches anymore. We don't allow slavery anymore. We still have a long way to go but lest not forget how far we've come. Only things supported by evidence are valid. Everything else is heresay.

And you helped my point a bit here too. My children will advance further than I, and hopefully their children beyond that. We are young species and hopefully will get past our petty differences before they kill us. This doesn't mean, however, that some ideals from the past should be tossed out willy nilly. This doesn't make them right either. It is the duty of the free mind to examine all information and try to find the common themes and build a picture of truth.

For 8 billion people though, that's 8 billion truths. None can claim ownership of the truth, but we can't really say any one person is completely false.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I agree with this completely.

Alrighty.

This is where I somewhat part with you on ideas. Now to believe any one sect as having 100% of the truth I feel is foolish, but when so many, from all walks of life having completely distinct cultures, have a similar notion, I think it unwise to completely dismiss the notion.

Imagine if you lost your sight. You can't see the sky anymore but know what it looked like. So you ask ten people what the weather is like outside. One person in a panic tells you it's the end of the world, tornado's, hail, rain and snow and lightning all over the place. The next says the sun is peaking through here and there and there's a bit of rain. This goes on and on to where you've heard all ten people describe outside. Now while all the claims seem to be contradictory as to the details, the one common theme is clouds. Now it's nothing you can prove, or even disprove, but having so many accounts, I would imagine you could safely conclude there were clouds in the sky.

I would contend also that we are no different on our "lived short lives steeped in ignorance." Even if you live 100 years, that's pretty short in contrast to how old our earth is. Ignorance? How could any one of us say that we are not so? Just because we've learned things on a exponential scale, it's all relative. Imagine an alien race chillin in the upper atmosphere. I imagine we look pretty ignorant to much of the universe.

Now I can't say there's a God, a cool guy in a chair takin care of me, or something that created all you see around you. If there was however, I imagine such a being wouldn't be hanging around telling mankind what's what. That would take away from the joys and pains of life.

We are still ignorant I give you that. But compared to how we were it isn't the same. They relied on religion and myth to explain the world around them. We no longer do that. This is a monumental stepe in our development as a species. We now seek answers through empirical evidence only. Or at least that is how we have progressed our knoweldges. The same cannot be said for each individual.

But my point was specifically counter to your usage of yourself to your children as a metaphor for them to us. They haven't lived longer than us and they haven't had the opprotunities we had. I have something else important but i'll mix that together with the next paragraph.

And you helped my point a bit here too. My children will advance further than I, and hopefully their children beyond that. We are young species and hopefully will get past our petty differences before they kill us. This doesn't mean, however, that some ideals from the past should be tossed out willy nilly. This doesn't make them right either. It is the duty of the free mind to examine all information and try to find the common themes and build a picture of truth.

For 8 billion people though, that's 8 billion truths. None can claim ownership of the truth, but we can't really say any one person is completely false.

Something once told to me that changed my views forever was a college profressor on the debate of god. She said that all human experiences are valuable. However beliefs about those experiences are often not.

What she meant by that is that everyone comse to conclusions based on their own experiences. Other people will experience different things than me. They may even experience the same things as me but differnetly. There is something to learn from listening and learning from other people. But don't confuse value for their stories for value for their beliefs.

Billions of people have experiences that they feel support a religious lifestyle. I disagree with their beliefs but I feel there is value to their stories.

 

[NoGuru]

We are still ignorant I give you that. But compared to how we were it isn't the same. They relied on religion and myth to explain the world around them. We no longer do that. This is a monumental stepe in our development as a species. We now seek answers through empirical evidence only. Or at least that is how we have progressed our knoweldges. The same cannot be said for each individual.

Any path we take is going to be defined by the path. Imagine if our numbering system were 3 based, or 4 based. Someone talking of a 10 based number system would sound like a lunatic, and the 3 based number system would still be self proving, just like ours is now. Empirical evidence is just as skewed by the observer effect as much human experience.

This is certainly not to say that the scientific process holds no value, but many fail to see how science has become a new religion. Now, many take great offense when I say that, but stop and think about it. For the average sheople hearing on the news how some study says a glass of wine is just as good as an hour at the gym, they take that as fact because it was a study and booya, goodbye gym, hello wine!

Apply that to some spiritual encounter. A man has some epiphany or something truly beyond measure, people hear of this word of mouth and booya, hello God.

This quote:

She said that all human experiences are valuable. However beliefs about those experiences are often not.

is very powerful. Intuition is a hell of a concept. I can go into personal experience after personal experience on events that defy reason, but even if told in every detail as I could remember, they prove nothing. Just a hunch, of a feeling, on a hunch.

I think the greatest challenge for man is to remove unchanging belief. I've had experiences where I could have easily taken them as proof of God, but I cannot deny there are more explanations that fit, but do not fit within the confines of my belief system. So let's say these experiences fit within N belief systems. The truth may not even be there. There could be an Nth belief system that explains it truthfully and I cannot comprehend such a scenario.

Billions of people have experiences that they feel support a religious lifestyle. I disagree with their beliefs but I feel there is value to their stories.

I feel it important to recognize not something greater than us, but simply us. Man will perish from this existence if he cannot learn to live together within it. No community holds truth. No one belief in God will ever satisfy all mankind, nor will any amount of scientific process make atheists of mankind.

Therefore, it would appear the best thing to do given this impasse, would be to simply treat others as you wish to be treated. Respect beliefs, do not force them upon others, and yourself search for truth.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Any path we take is going to be defined by the path. Imagine if our numbering system were 3 based, or 4 based. Someone talking of a 10 based number system would sound like a lunatic, and the 3 based number system would still be self proving, just like ours is now. Empirical evidence is just as skewed by the observer effect as much human experience.

This is certainly not to say that the scientific process holds no value, but many fail to see how science has become a new religion. Now, many take great offense when I say that, but stop and think about it. For the average sheople hearing on the news how some study says a glass of wine is just as good as an hour at the gym, they take that as fact because it was a study and booya, goodbye gym, hello wine!

Apply that to some spiritual encounter. A man has some epiphany or something truly beyond measure, people hear of this word of mouth and booya, hello God.

There is no real reason why our number system has to be based off 10. Most ancient systems are because we have 10 fingers. However there were advanced civilizations that used non 10 base systems. Ancient Egypt used a 12 based system because of the belief that 12 is a sacred number. In fact the usage of the number 12 in Christianity is most likely absorbed from Egyptian Mythos especially borrowing from the god Horus. This change and development of religion is anothe reason why I doubt its validity.

I agree that sheople will believe what they want to hear. In many cases its religion. In other cases its that wine is good for you. Ect ect ect. I don't see science as being in any way similar to religion because it is simply a process not a fundamentalist sect. Everything can be questioned and should. Empirical evidence is free from personal experience when it is verified and tested by many people independently. That gives it more solidity.

This quote:



is very powerful. Intuition is a hell of a concept. I can go into personal experience after personal experience on events that defy reason, but even if told in every detail as I could remember, they prove nothing. Just a hunch, of a feeling, on a hunch.

I think the greatest challenge for man is to remove unchanging belief. I've had experiences where I could have easily taken them as proof of God, but I cannot deny there are more explanations that fit, but do not fit within the confines of my belief system. So let's say these experiences fit within N belief systems. The truth may not even be there. There could be an Nth belief system that explains it truthfully and I cannot comprehend such a scenario.



I feel it important to recognize not something greater than us, but simply us. Man will perish from this existence if he cannot learn to live together within it. No community holds truth. No one belief in God will ever satisfy all mankind, nor will any amount of scientific process make atheists of mankind.

Therefore, it would appear the best thing to do given this impasse, would be to simply treat others as you wish to be treated. Respect beliefs, do not force them upon others, and yourself search for truth.

For the most part I agree with all that is said here.

 

[NoGuru]

There is no real reason why our number system has to be based off 10. Most ancient systems are because we have 10 fingers. However there were advanced civilizations that used non 10 base systems. Ancient Egypt used a 12 based system because of the belief that 12 is a sacred number. In fact the usage of the number 12 in Christianity is most likely absorbed from Egyptian Mythos especially borrowing from the god Horus. This change and development of religion is anothe reason why I doubt its validity.

Numerology. 12 equates to 3, 3 represents divine unity. It's all over the place. But that's a side note...

I agree that sheople will believe what they want to hear. In many cases its religion. In other cases its that wine is good for you. Ect ect ect. I don't see science as being in any way similar to religion because it is simply a process not a fundamentalist sect. Everything can be questioned and should. Empirical evidence is free from personal experience when it is verified and tested by many people independently. That gives it more solidity.

It's in no way similar to a belief in a God figure. Similarly, Christianity is different from Taoism, as well as Hinduism, and all are simply a means of understanding the world around us. The problem is never the process, the problem is the blind acceptance of any process without personal investigation.

The way in which science has become a new religion is simply this: A mass majority of people have no understanding of "the facts," nor how those facts came about but can regurgitate countless studies to make this argument or that. Having read the Bible in it's entirety (was forced to as a child), it kills me walking into any sermon and seeing half scripture posted on powerpoints that the head guy will use to make a point, but the second half of that very scripture counters his point. Now the mass in attendance go out and quote that scripture and make some point.... but it's all a farce.

Science and religion have nothing to do with each other, just as astrophysics is separate from geology in their finite details, yet fall under the same umbrella. Please don't misunderstand what I say as me saying science is bad, wrong or otherwise... I work on databases so my ability to provide for family relies heavily upon it! My largest issue with the whole debate of these two polarities is simply that there's nothing wrong with whatever path a person chooses to go down... every path is the right path, as long as that person keeps walking and learns the path fully, not just takes a side and sits down at the start of the path. Even worse so is when arguments about which path to take break out, because it's frivolous. There will always be those who study the sciences and always those who find some kind of faith. Our race, in it's diversity will prosper as long as can praise the diversity, and not be divided to the point of violence by it. This point you already agreed with above.

So my comment about science being a new religion... That's a bit short of a sentence to be understood for what it means. I should more expansively say "Science is not a fix for religion if people don't change their study habits".

Edit:
I'm reminded of a quote by either the Dalai Lama or one of the eastern spiritual leaders. When asked if a rock had consciousness he thought for several days then replied "If you believe it does, then it does."

Is God real? Well, we can debate until we fill the storage limits on this site, but it all boils down to each individual. If you believe he is, then in your life you'll act in a way the supports that belief. If you believe he's not, then you'll act in a way that supports that belief. Just try to remember there's 8 billion other opinions out there, all equally valid. Find your truth and try not to be an a****le to others and think we'd all be better off.

Edit 2: These comments are not directed towards any individual

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Numerology. 12 equates to 3, 3 represents divine unity. It's all over the place. But that's a side note...



It's in no way similar to a belief in a God figure. Similarly, Christianity is different from Taoism, as well as Hinduism, and all are simply a means of understanding the world around us. The problem is never the process, the problem is the blind acceptance of any process without personal investigation.

The way in which science has become a new religion is simply this: A mass majority of people have no understanding of "the facts," nor how those facts came about but can regurgitate countless studies to make this argument or that. Having read the Bible in it's entirety (was forced to as a child), it kills me walking into any sermon and seeing half scripture posted on powerpoints that the head guy will use to make a point, but the second half of that very scripture counters his point. Now the mass in attendance go out and quote that scripture and make some point.... but it's all a farce.

Science and religion have nothing to do with each other, just as astrophysics is separate from geology in their finite details, yet fall under the same umbrella. Please don't misunderstand what I say as me saying science is bad, wrong or otherwise... I work on databases so my ability to provide for family relies heavily upon it! My largest issue with the whole debate of these two polarities is simply that there's nothing wrong with whatever path a person chooses to go down... every path is the right path, as long as that person keeps walking and learns the path fully, not just takes a side and sits down at the start of the path. Even worse so is when arguments about which path to take break out, because it's frivolous. There will always be those who study the sciences and always those who find some kind of faith. Our race, in it's diversity will prosper as long as can praise the diversity, and not be divided to the point of violence by it. This point you already agreed with above.

So my comment about science being a new religion... That's a bit short of a sentence to be understood for what it means. I should more expansively say "Science is not a fix for religion if people don't change their study habits".

Edit:
I'm reminded of a quote by either the Dalai Lama or one of the eastern spiritual leaders. When asked if a rock had consciousness he thought for several days then replied "If you believe it does, then it does."

Is God real? Well, we can debate until we fill the storage limits on this site, but it all boils down to each individual. If you believe he is, then in your life you'll act in a way the supports that belief. If you believe he's not, then you'll act in a way that supports that belief. Just try to remember there's 8 billion other opinions out there, all equally valid. Find your truth and try not to be an a****le to others and think we'd all be better off.

Edit 2: These comments are not directed towards any individual

However science is verifiable and is open for anyone to explore and learn for themselves. It isnt' a blind faith unless someone wants it to be.

 

[NoGuru]

However science is verifiable and is open for anyone to explore and learn for themselves. It isnt' a blind faith unless someone wants it to be.

And that's your opinion and the opinion of others. Tell someone who's had a near death experience however, and truly believes they saw the light that just because you can't reproduce it then it holds no value. Your argument makes sense, I'm not denying this whatsoever. The devaluation of personal "spiritual" experiences is, IMHO, dogmatic.

I think you might enjoy a documentary called "Neurons to Nirvana."(Available on Prime Video) Studies were halted in the 50's, but each person undergoing a certain treatment had the same experience. So what do you make of this? How can that be tested, made verifiable? Is a unified experience qualifying of science?

You must also accept that the scientific community, just like the religious community, is as fallible to man's greed as anything we touch.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

And that's your opinion and the opinion of others. Tell someone who's had a near death experience however, and truly believes they saw the light that just because you can't reproduce it then it holds no value. Your argument makes sense, I'm not denying this whatsoever. The devaluation of personal "spiritual" experiences is, IMHO, dogmatic.

The dogmagic bit is that you need to verify something. Otherwise how do you know its real? Even if you did see the light how does someone know that it was religious or spiritual in nature?

I think you might enjoy a documentary called "Neurons to Nirvana."(Available on Prime Video) Studies were halted in the 50's, but each person undergoing a certain treatment had the same experience. So what do you make of this? How can that be tested, made verifiable? Is a unified experience qualifying of science?

I've seen the doumentary. It was a few years ago however. But the issue is that what evidence gives us the credibility to jump from linked experiences to supernatural? The current neurobiology research makes those studies look like child's play. Yet nothing about them links us to the supernatural.

You must also accept that the scientific community, just like the religious community, is as fallible to man's greed as anything we touch.

Agreed. Which is why verifiable and repeaable evidence is needed for any factual claim. We have a huge amount of garbage coming out of the publication game because of our flawed system of incentives for scientists. However the chaff never makes it past buzz feed sensationalism in terms of credibility. Its a problem really with our culture more than the scientific process.

 

[NoGuru]

The dogmagic bit is that you need to verify something. Otherwise how do you know its real? Even if you did see the light how does someone know that it was religious or spiritual in nature?

By no means. The dogmatic bit is that often experiences are tossed out, but I feel we're tossing the baby out with the bathwater. We have no current means to test this, so we move in the opposite direction, that's where I see some amount of dogma.

I've seen the doumentary. It was a few years ago however. But the issue is that what evidence gives us the credibility to jump from linked experiences to supernatural? The current neurobiology research makes those studies look like child's play. Yet nothing about them links us to the supernatural.

Agree and disagree. I see a neurologist on a weekly basis and he was at the forefront of TBI research. We've developed more of a friendship and usually just shoot the s**t during our sessions. He's shared some interesting anecdotes during research he was attending. People who claim to see aura's have a unique brain wave frequency pattern, both while not performing the practice and during. There is "science" behind some of this 'supernatural' phenomena, it's just not in the way that is delivered for general consumption.

Agreed. Which is why verifiable and repeaable evidence is needed for any factual claim. We have a huge amount of garbage coming out of the publication game because of our flawed system of incentives for scientists. However the chaff never makes it past buzz feed sensationalism in terms of credibility. Its a problem really with our culture more than the scientific process.

And I would change that to "Its a problem really with our culture more than the religious process." Now you have my point towards both religion and science alike. It's never the process a man takes to find truth... it's his ability to just give up and accept truth at step 1 of 5 billion. The Apostle Paul spoke about the uselessness of attending church to find God...... but you don't hear that one from the pulpit. Christ said to prove your faith... in some ways doubt it, but that's not something the average Christian knows either.

Imagine if we setup the Church of Science and they took the scientific method (pictured below),

but in this church all they care about is you putting money in their box. So to make the method a bit less strenuous (convenience drives attendance!), they only leave in the parts of the method that are: "Ask a question, Test with an Experiment, Communicate Results." What horrible research findings would you expect to come of this? Now all in attendance gain the title "Scientist." How many people who devote their entire life to science and a proper method do you think would lose their minds??? Now you have idiots going around who understand little to nothing of the process, spreading some half cocked method as science and really just making the whole process look bad.

Welcome to religion. There's nothing wrong with any process... it's the culture (as you pointed out) that really makes a mess of things.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

By no means. The dogmatic bit is that often experiences are tossed out, but I feel we're tossing the baby out with the bathwater. We have no current means to test this, so we move in the opposite direction, that's where I see some amount of dogma.

In what scientific way could any of it be used if it cannot be verified or repeated?

Agree and disagree. I see a neurologist on a weekly basis and he was at the forefront of TBI research. We've developed more of a friendship and usually just shoot the s**t during our sessions. He's shared some interesting anecdotes during research he was attending. People who claim to see aura's have a unique brain wave frequency pattern, both while not performing the practice and during. There is "science" behind some of this 'supernatural' phenomena, it's just not in the way that is delivered for general consumption.

All I can say is I"d like to see his evidence. TBH I'd like to believe that supernatural phenomenon existed. I feel it would make this world a lot more interesting. I don't like Marvel Movies and D&D because they are eralistic and fact based. But the evience usually is dry. People make these claims all the time but when push comes to shove....its smoke and mirrors.

And I would change that to "Its a problem really with our culture more than the religious process." Now you have my point towards both religion and science alike. It's never the process a man takes to find truth... it's his ability to just give up and accept truth at step 1 of 5 billion. The Apostle Paul spoke about the uselessness of attending church to find God...... but you don't hear that one from the pulpit. Christ said to prove your faith... in some ways doubt it, but that's not something the average Christian knows either.

Imagine if we setup the Church of Science and they took the scientific method (pictured below),

but in this church all they care about is you putting money in their box. So to make the method a bit less strenuous (convenience drives attendance!), they only leave in the parts of the method that are: "Ask a question, Test with an Experiment, Communicate Results." What horrible research findings would you expect to come of this? Now all in attendance gain the title "Scientist." How many people who devote their entire life to science and a proper method do you think would lose their minds??? Now you have idiots going around who understand little to nothing of the process, spreading some half cocked method as science and really just making the whole process look bad.

Welcome to religion. There's nothing wrong with any process... it's the culture (as you pointed out) that really makes a mess of things.

There is no religious process. Religion isn't a process. Science is a process. Religion is a defined belief system propagated by dogmatic beliefs on claims they can't verify that are often counter to what we see in the observable universe. Science is merely the word we use to name the process wherein we observe the universe, test it and draw conclusions bascked by evidence about it.

Another big difference is that the crap science isn't recognized or respected by science. Its just tabloid news click bait. That is the problem with our society rather than the scientific process. Because the scientific process didn't come to the conclusion for an evidence base claim that red wine is good for you. A study shown that it wasn't as harmful as thought. Then a news outlet took that title and ran with it spreading the good word across the nation. Religion however is how it appears. It is what it teaches to the masses.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This is where I somewhat part with you on ideas. Now to believe any one sect as having 100% of the truth I feel is foolish, but when so many, from all walks of life having completely distinct cultures, have a similar notion, I think it unwise to completely dismiss the notion.

I always wonder at this notion, that so many people's have religious notions that can be thought similar in some ways, and that we ought not therefore dismiss them.

Nobody ever wonders if there are some cats that are vegetarian, or prefer chasing larger prey (say elephants) to smaller ones (say mice). But why would we wonder? They're all cats.

We're all humans, and while we are much more complex, especially in our mental processes, than most animals, we are still all one species. We have many languages, but the underlying parts of those languages (verbs, nouns, number, past/present/future tenses, completion/incompletion, proper names, etc.) are present in all of them. So if humans are predisposed to assume the existence of other minds in those around them, and then to suppose that mind might transcend body, it shouldn't surprise us that so many do.

But it should not make us (without some evidence) accept it as truth, either. The truth isn't defined by how many people believe something.

 

[ronandcarol]

Is God real?
"He traps the wise in the snare of their own cleverness." ... God is as real. He will give wisdom to anyone who humbly trusts in His Son and believes. He will give you all the faith you need to fully believe if you just ask.

ronandcarol

 

[corynski]

Yes welcome. My humble opinion is that the God that people's imaginations have created is alive and well in the world of fantasy and that most religionists don't believe in God but instead, the God that their imaginations have formed.

Thus, billions of people worship not God but what they imagine to be God.

 

[loverofhumanity]

We don't know the essence of God. All we know is what the Messengers and Prophets have told us and they have not told us of God's essence only His attributes such as loving, just, compassionate etc.

Anything we imagine to be God is not God as it is produced by our imaginations. We cannot imagine God. That which we imagine, is not God.

 

[jonathan180iq]

If anyone wants to claim that god exists objectively, then I'd like to see their supporting evidence for such a claim.

If your only evidence that god exists is that you believe it very strongly, then you have nothing, essentially.

Until there is evidence for something, there is no reason to believe in it, regardless of what it is.

If your greatest defense for belief in god is that it cannot be disproven, then you need to consider the strength of your argument as all other god claims are equally defensible, using your own logic.

 

[Coder]

The God in Your Head is Real, by Evangelicalhumanist

The real question is are we real? I say yes, because we are in God's "mind". I like to think that we're all just "figments" of God's imagination, except when God conceives something, it's actually real.