McBell
Unbound
Would it surprise you to find out that most scientists don't give a hoot about your bia and prejudices?If it were possible to define and find God, most scientists would even more studiously avoid the search.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Would it surprise you to find out that most scientists don't give a hoot about your bia and prejudices?If it were possible to define and find God, most scientists would even more studiously avoid the search.
If God transcends the boundaries of existence as you perceive it, how do you know he exists?If "God" were hovering in the air right in front of us, in some unimaginable 'blaze of glory', what could science do to verify that this experience is actually God?
Answer: nothing. Science could do nothing to verify the nature or existence of God even if God were hovering right in front of us all. So what can science do to verify the nature or existence of God when God is not hovering in the air right in front of us all? The answer is even less than nothing, as it wouldn't knowhow or where to even look. And in fact, there is no human intellectual endeavor that could verify the nature or existence of God, for humanity. The concept of God transcends the boundaries of existence as we perceive it. It is beyond our comprehending except as a mysterious possibility.
We can't know it. We can only know that it is possible. And then we can choose to trust in that possibility, or not. Which we choose, and why, is completely up to us.If God transcends the boundaries of existence as you perceive it, how do you know he exists?
A soon as credible, objective evidence for a god is found, there will be a stampede of scientists rushing to investigate the discovery.cladking said:
If it were possible to define and find God, most scientists would even more studiously avoid the search.
They need more than evidence. They need a physical phenomenon of some kind. Otherwise they have no means of investigating the evidence. There's already plenty of evidence, but it's not physical or mathematical, it's logical (philosophical) and scientists can't investigate that.A soon as credible, objective evidence for a god is found, there will be a stampede of scientists rushing to investigate the discovery.
Why would science not want to learn about so interesting a phenomenon, regardless of how it's originally defined/conceived?
Fame, fortune and a Nobel Prize await the successful scientist, so why wouldn't it be interested?Is science interested in finding God ?
My point is that even humans are unsure what God is, so if an actual God were to show up and humans were able to understand it was an actual God, why couldn;t science acknowledge it too? Let's note that science isn't some unhuman thing, it is the ultimate human endeavor that uncovers what is true about the universe. So far in human history many believe they experience God, but in no way can they show this is a real and true experience. It's more likely tthe human brain creating experiences through imagination. The dilemma for theists is that no actual God ever shows itself.I wasn't asking about 'lore', nor was I asking about any 'believers'. It was a simple question. What could science possibly do to verify that a direct visitation from God was an actual visitation from God?
You theists cliam you are having experinces with real gods, but you can't show this is really happening and it's not just imagined. It's notable that the "experiences" with gods are cultural. No one ever "experiences" Jesus without first hearing about Jesus from others. That's a good bit of evidence that imagination is what is happening with abstract ideas picked up from social experience.But we aren't talking about "imaginary" visitations. We're talking about an actual direct experience that BOTH witness.
If it's really happening, and humans are witnessing real phenomenon, why wouldn't science be able to investigate? Your learned bias against science only reveals that you need to protect religious experience from scrutiny, and that must be because you know it isn't authentic. If humans can really detect and sence a God, then science can study it. So far no Gods detected, and the belief in gods is learned behavior via social experience.Why is it so difficult for you to just admit that science would be useless to us in the face of such an event?
This is your claim, so you need to explain it. But of course you fall back on your beliefs and bias and have no case. You expect critical thinkers to assume what religious believers do, and that is against our principles for seeking truth. You're more interested in believing than understanding what is true about human experience.Perhaps it's because you don't want to discuss WHY science would be useless in the face of such an event.
That sort of speculative pondering by the religious and philoosophers doesn't have to follow facts, nor a method, nor logic, nor work towards true conclusions. It is at best an exercize that might or might not involve intellect. We see many dumb people speculate (and even boldly claim) about the immaterial, so as a category it isn't neessarily intellectual.They do?. Philosophers discuss and debate immaterial speculative possibilities all the time. Is philosophy not an intellectual pursuit?
Art never intends to describe reality, it's a human expression that is derived from the human mind. Religion is more like art than science.Art also depicts images and representing questions and possibilities that have no correspondence in the material world.
It may or may not be. I suggest it requires something that isn't necessarly intellect.Is art also not an intellectual pursuit?
And there's the exaggerated insult that exposes your fear and insecurity. I take note of theists who believe themselves so deeply experienced with a God but show serious mental flaws like this. To my mind it is rooted in an awareness that the religious experiences aren't what they think they are. But the beliefs are invested in, and the alternative, that the believer might be wrong, is unacceptable to the ego.Or are you just so blinded by your worship of science as the only possible means of understanding the truth of 'what is' that you just habitually ignore these other possibilities?
Cultural norms, like religion. Have you noticed the diversity of religious beliefs all over the world? Even Christianity and Islam have evolved versions that are prevalent in one place but not others. If religion is the "truth" why so many different interpretations and rituals?That sentence makes no sense. Yes, humans are fallible. Yes, we have 'evolved'. Yes, we do adopt patterns of behavior ... to mimic what?
Look at all the conflicts in the wolrd today due to religious differences. Survival in Gaza and Isreal depends on how many more die before it's enough. That's religious extremism at work, and they all are uncompromising in that they have THE truth, and doing God's will.Those around us? Of course. We learn from each other. We do it to survive.
That is what I state, that believers aren't believing because of evidence, but learned behavior to believe in religious ideas, and to create experiences in the mind.First, you don't seem to understand that what ANYONE believes about God (including you) is irrelevant to there being an actual God, or not.
Too bad there's no evidence for any of the many versions of God thought to exist in reality. That's why critical thinkers reject belief in gods. You certainly offer no rational reason to believe.And secondly, being able to explain why someone else would choose to believe whatever they do about God (even if you were correct) likewise has nothing whatever to do with God's actually existence.
I follow evidence, and the evidence suggests religions were invented, and they have become part of social and cultural normalities. Theists who insist their gods exist fail to show their cclaims are true. That's their problem, not the problem of critial thinkers. Your gripe is that critical thinkers aren't adopting the norms of religious assumption, like assuming a hower power exists of some sort.So whether you know why people believe in God, or not, it still has nothing to do with whether or not God exists. So your proposed 'justification' here fails on both counts. It fails to show that anyone else's belief in God is wrong, and it fails to show that your lack of belief in God is right. Because what you or anyone else believes about God has no bearing at all on the actual question of whether or not God exists.
Science does excellent work on describing what is real and true. It's theists who are troubled with a lack of evidence for their beliefs. Why to believers believe at all? Not because of evidence, but of learned behavior.Humans choose to believe in all sorts of unverified ideas. How true they are is seldom knowable. Especially when it comes to the nature and existence of any gods.
Until you engage with critical thinkers. Then you insist that we are wrong, and you are correct, and all without any basis in fact or reason. You have these principles but don;t aply them to believers, which includes yourself. So why the discrepancy, and why not work towards actually following this?Conforming to group opinion, or NOT conforming to group opinion has absolutely no bearing on the accuracy of ANYONE'S opinions.
This applies to you, not critical thinkers.Whether it's shared by a group or not. So this weak attempt at justification also fails regardless of the opinion being upheld, or rejected.
I wrote:So you have no actual justification, then, for slandering theism, or promoting atheism.
Why find only one god (named God)?Is science interested in finding God ?
Because that's not how science works.My point is that even humans are unsure what God is, so if an actual God were to show up and humans were able to understand it was an actual God, why couldn;t science acknowledge it too?
Science is a method for investigating physical interactions. Physical causes and effects. If "God" appeared before us and claimed that identity, scientists would try to investigate the physics of this phenomenon, surely. But how would this validate or invalidate the claim?Let's note that science isn't some unhuman thing, it is the ultimate human endeavor that uncovers what is true about the universe.
Nor can anyone show that it was not. That's my point. If such an experience occurred in a room full of scientists, they couldn't tell the false experience from a genuine one, either.So far in human history many believe they experience God, but in no way can they show this is a real and true experience.
Why is that "more likely"? What does any of us know about the likelihood of a genuine God experience?It's more likely the human brain creating experiences through imagination.
Well, given that such an appearance can't provide us any assurance, what would then be the point? Why are you presuming that we should have expected such a thing?The dilemma for theists is that no actual God ever shows itself.
But your bias is not the default, here. There is no logical reason why one person's experience of God should be shared by or should mimic anyone else's. So when they don't, it does not support your bias.You theists cliam you are having experinces with real gods, but you can't show this is really happening and it's not just imagined.
Well, that is how we humans we cognate our experiences: by assigning familiar labels and characteristics to them (compare/contrast/repeat). I don't rreally see how we could avoid doing this. How could we cognate a God-experience without using whatever concepts we have available to us via our culture.It's notable that the "experiences" with gods are cultural. No one ever "experiences" Jesus without first hearing about Jesus from others. That's a good bit of evidence that imagination is what is happening with abstract ideas picked up from social experience.
What is an "unreal" phenomenon? Even hallucinations are "real phenomena".If it's really happening, and humans are witnessing real phenomenon, why wouldn't science be able to investigate?
Science can't study ideas. It's can only study physical interaction. God is an idea.Your learned bias against science only reveals that you need to protect religious experience from scrutiny, and that must be because you know it isn't authentic. If humans can really detect and sence a God, then science can study it.
The many versions of God that are thought to exist ARE evidence.Too bad there's no evidence for any of the many versions of God thought to exist in reality.
I reject belief in gods, AND 'disbelief' in them. Belief is just silly human hubris.That's why critical thinkers reject belief in gods. You certainly offer no rational reason to believe.
I have noticed that anytime anyone has ever claimed to be a "critical thinker' they turned out to be blowing smoke up their own butts.Until you engage with critical thinkers.
I ignore this nonsense because it is nonsense. Unquestioned bias is not "critical thinking". Nor is it a logical default position. And every time you try to pass these off as critical thought, I am going to ignore it for the nonsense that it is. You think that because a hallucinogenic drug enables someone to experience God, that the experience must be "unreal" or "untrue" (hallucination, only). Because that ir the bias that you want to conclude. But if you really were a "critical thinker", you would see that even if is it an hallucination caused by the drug, that does not logically discount it as being a genuine experience of God. And even as you're reading this you STILL aren't going to see it.Then you insist that we are wrong, and you are correct, and all without any basis in fact or reason. You have these principles but don;t aply them to believers, which includes yourself. So why the discrepancy, and why not work towards actually following this?
This applies to you, not critical thinkers.
I wrote:
Not really. It's a set of ideas that have have integrated into social life and mental software. Ideas like gods and other rituals, and things like language, all become a sort of software that we use as sorts of utilities. Naturally we value these utilities for certain functionality of social life. Atheists, and even some former believers, have learned that belief in religious ideas aren't necessary in modern life. Non-belief might get you beheaded in Iran, but not in first world nations. Oh god concepts aren't that complicated. Some are even ridiculous. Believers just avoid questioning whether their gods exist, and instead mask this uncertainty with invented mysteries. Why wold a believer risk examining whther their god exists on case they discover it doesn't? Being lost in the mysterious fog, as you like to claim, is a good way to hide from your own fer and anxiety of there being no gods. Walking alone or in groups in the fog doesn't sound very appealing to atheists, or even those theists are are absolutely certain their beliefs are true.
How isn't this justified? You brush off my comment withotu any rebuttal. If you have none, then just be honest about it.
And even as you're reading this you STILL aren't going to see it.
Is science interested in finding God ?
Why not? Your scenario was God showing up so it was evident to anyone, and that includes scientists. That means God could be examined since it would be a real observed phenomenon.Because that's not how science works.
There is no answer since it is hypothetical. Scientists have many instruments to use and exmine the phenomenon of God.Science is a method for investigating physical interactions. Physical causes and effects. If "God" appeared before us and claimed that identity, scientists would try to investigate the physics of this phenomenon, surely. But how would this validate or invalidate the claim?
Well if you want to experience God you'd better stay drugged up. What a pity it's the only way.Think of it this way ... if I take an hallucinogenic drug and then I experience God, directly, did the drug cause a "false" experience, or did the drug enable a real one? And how could anyone possibly tell the difference?
That's why we follow evidence, not assumptions and desires.Nor can anyone show that it was not.
How do you know? More of your bias against science. How would you know a genuine from imagined? Do you consider the 9-11 hijackers as experiening God in a genuine way? I mean, hell they died for their God, do you think that is just imaginary?That's my point. If such an experience occurred in a room full of scientists, they couldn't tell the false experience from a genuine one, either.
Because no Gods are known to exist. Those who claim to experience Gods don't show any particular wisdom or insight, and many are quite dogmatic and narrow minded. Not the best witnesses. And let me repeat, no evidence of Gods existing.Why is that "more likely"? What does any of us know about the likelihood of a genuine God experience?
Really? You don't think an apvearance by an actual God would impress everyone? I think one of the reasons so many Christians and Muslims are vile people is because they aren't convinced God exists and aren't worried about accountability to it. They get away with bad behavior because that is what others approve of in their tribe. The evangelicals who love Trump, do they really act as if they fear the God that Jesus talks about?Well, given that such an appearance can't provide us any assurance, what would then be the point? Why are you presuming that we should have expected such a thing?
You can't just say bias when you disagree with someone. Why should we take claimants word for their extraordinary claims? Believers claim all sorts of things that they can't show are true. They can't explain how they came to "experience" an actual God in a way that makes sense. And it doesn't help that many different Gods are claimed to be THE God, which means the others aren't real.But your bias is not the default, here. There is no logical reason why one person's experience of God should be shared by or should mimic anyone else's. So when they don't, it does not support your bias.
It's not a matter of similar experiences with differnt labels and words. It is completely different rituals and experiences, which is cultural.Well, that is how we humans we cognate our experiences: by assigning familiar labels and characteristics to them (compare/contrast/repeat). I don't rreally see how we could avoid doing this. How could we cognate a God-experience without using whatever concepts we have available to us via our culture.
I referred to real phenomenon. Unreal phenomenon is nonsense. The hallucination is a real mental phenomenon, but the person is mistaken about what they think is happening.What is an "unreal" phenomenon? Even hallucinations are "real phenomena".
Then how can believers experience it?Science can't study ideas. It's can only study physical interaction. God is an idea.
Only evidence of many, mnay different versions, not evidence of them being real. Even you admit God is just an idea.The many versions of God that are thought to exist ARE evidence.
This is incoherent. How can you be against disbelief in Gods? And reject belief? You already admitted they are ideas. More foggy, grey area, blurred vision mystery to hide in?I reject belief in gods, AND 'disbelief' in them. Belief is just silly human hubris.
And you almost got through a reply without an insult.I have noticed that anytime anyone has ever claimed to be a "critical thinker' they turned out to be blowing smoke up their own butts.
This is not a reasoned rebuttal, it's just protesting because you have nothing to defend your position.I ignore this nonsense because it is nonsense. Unquestioned bias is not "critical thinking". Nor is it a logical default position. And every time you try to pass these off as critical thought, I am going to ignore it for the nonsense that it is. You think that because a hallucinogenic drug enables someone to experience God, that the experience must be "unreal" or "untrue" (hallucination, only). Because that ir the bias that you want to conclude. But if you really were a "critical thinker", you would see that even if is it an hallucination caused by the drug, that does not logically discount it as being a genuine experience of God. And even as you're reading this you STILL aren't going to see it.
But that is not proof of God. Only proof of a mysterious phenomenon calling itself God.Why not? Your scenario was God showing up so it was evident to anyone, and that includes scientists. That means God could be examined since it would be a real observed phenomenon.
No, they have instruments for examining physical phenomena. But none for determining that such is God.There is no answer since it is hypothetical. Scientists have many instruments to use and exmine the phenomenon of God.
If it is a way, nothing says it's the only way, ... nothing but your automatic bias.Well if you want to experience God you'd better stay drugged up. What a pity it's the only way.
Evidence is an assumption. And one usually based on a desired conclusion. As we just saw in your comment above.That's why we follow evidence, not assumptions and desires.
I can't validate or invalidate anyone's experience of God. And neither can you, nor can science.How do you know? More of your bias against science. How would you know a genuine from imagined? Do you consider the 9-11 hijackers as experiening God in a genuine way? I mean, hell they died for their God, do you think that is just imaginary?
Those instruments will document the occurrance of ANY thought. But it tells us nothing at all about the validity of those thoughts. The brain is not the mind. Any more than the computer is the program.There's been a lot of studies using fMRI and pet scans on brains that have religious thoughts and experiences.
We don't know what can or can't exist. So not knowing if gods exist signifies nothing but our own ignorance.Because no Gods are known to exist.
Plenty of evidence, but no proof. And your bias against theists is just self-serving nonsense.Those who claim to experience Gods don't show any particular wisdom or insight, and many are quite dogmatic and narrow minded. Not the best witnesses. And let me repeat, no evidence of Gods existing.
What does being impressed have to do with anything? I thought you were such a skeptical thinker. Why wouldn't you and your skeptical cohorts be doubting this visitation, and looking for other possible explanations? I would be. And I'm a theist.Really? You don't think an appearance by an actual God would impress everyone?
I think it's because they are people. And there are always a percentage of people that are going to be 'vile'.I think one of the reasons so many Christians and Muslims are vile people is because they aren't convinced God exists and aren't worried about accountability to it.
I can when that's all it really is.You can't just say bias when you disagree with someone.
I don't see why you think you have to take their claims as anything more than what they are. If I meet someone that says they met God, I have no reason to accept nor reject their claim. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. What do I care? If I met God, myself, I'd STILL be skeptical. Because I know that I have no way of knowing if that experience was valid, or not. I also know that no other human can know that, either. So ANY claim of meeting God is just a claim. Nothing more. I'm not going to be able to validate nor invalidate it. And the claimant isn't going to be able to, either. So why do you keep insisting that they must do so?Why should we take claimants word for their extraordinary claims?
And so do you when you claim that their claims are false.Believers claim all sorts of things that they can't show are true.
They don't have to explain it for it to have been a valid experience. For some reason you're not getting this.They can't explain how they came to "experience" an actual God in a way that makes sense.
There is no logical reason to expect otherwise. So this point is of no significance.And it doesn't help that many different Gods are claimed to be THE God, which means the others aren't real.
Even a false hallucination is a "real" phenomenon. So this whole reality assessment of yours is whacked. And it only served to bolster your bias. A skeptical thinker would understand immediately that the whole concept of "unreality" is nonsensical.It's not a matter of similar experiences with differnt labels and words. It is completely different rituals and experiences, which is cultural.
I referred to real phenomenon. Unreal phenomenon is nonsense.
But their interpretation of the phenomenon does not invalidate the phenomenon. Their calling it God doesn't make it God any more than your calling it not God makes it not God. The phenomenon remains "real", and so does the possibility that it was God. Our interpretations and biases don't change that fact of reality.The hallucination is a real mental phenomenon, but the person is mistaken about what they think is happening.
Everything we experience is "just an idea". Perception IS conception.Then how can believers experience it?
Only evidence of many, mnay different versions, not evidence of them being real. Even you admit God is just an idea.
Belief is just an arrogant presumption of our own righteousness. As such, it's both unnecessary and unwise. Faith, on the other hand, is the choice to trust in a concept of truth that we hope is true, even when we don't know it to be so, or know it not to be so. Faith is both useful and necessary to us. Belief is neither.This is incoherent. How can you be against disbelief in Gods? And reject belief? You already admitted they are ideas. More foggy, grey area, blurred vision mystery to hide in?
Finding God isn't really the aim of science, neither is denying spiritual realities.Is science interested in finding God ?
So science is interested in fame, fortune, and Nobel prizes? I thought it was interested in explaining how our natural world works.Fame, fortune and a Nobel Prize await the successful scientist, so why wouldn't it be interested?
science is a tool or methodology for acquiring and accumulating knowledge via testing the models (models include explanations & predictions).
No hypothesis and no theory is true, until they have been rigorously tested (through observations, eg experiments, evidence & data).
Science isn’t a religion, as there are no worshipping required for the belief in some mythological supernatural beings. Natural Sciences don’t deal in the supernatural, nor are there any worshipping.
it is you, who confusing science with religion. So all you are doing is laughing at your own ignorance.
Funny ... the way some talk about science as an intelligent entity that makes decisions and decides what others should accept.
Science is not a specific entity or group of people, nor does it dictate what humanity in general should believe or accept.
Some think that science is an entity that somehow takes the place of God for humanity.
And that idea is laughable, because human nature is flawed from root to top.
This must be why those who trust a certain group of people with certain philosophical thinking fail to solve human problems effectively... they give too much credit to human reasoning.
"God" is just the term most humans use to refer to that mystery (when they're speaking English).
God is the great mystery source, sustenance and purpose of all that it. The labels and concepts that we humans use to represent this mystery will vary, of course, according to our cultural experience of it. That is to be expected. How could it be otherwise? Yet you seem to expect that it shouldn't be like this. That somehow we all should have the same label and cultural experience of this greatest mystery, and that we should be able to "prove it" to each other. Which is quite illogical and unrealistic. And yet this presumption never seem to diminish among anti-theists.You use this phrase a lot. When "most humans" use the term 'God', do "most humans" consider the term 'God' to be pointing to the "great mystery" as you have so often describe "the great mystery", or do "most humans" see or believe the term 'God', when used, pointing to something else entirely? My impression is that it is the latter case.
Not all science BUT money and fame is a driver in any capitalist society, so some scientists will be motivated.So science is interested in fame, fortune, and Nobel prizes? I thought it was interested in explaining how our natural world works.
Science must be more ego-driven than I thought.