Why do some people

[RestlessSoul]

Yep.

You know what kind of unnerves me in
nature? The properties of water.

If something i know of tipped me toward,
Like, " OK Boss, Im on to you, this cant be natural", its water.

The world globes itself in a drop of dew.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

[Segev Moran]

Why do some people think that using science to "explain" any form of theism is a right way to understand belief in a God?

In discussion of theism science are useless since science do not "know" the unseen, so they can not verify a "result" if religion or spiritual teaching is discussed it has to be done by the teaching of each spiritual teaching. Not by use of science.

In the Jewish teachings, there is a saying that science will prove the Tora.
Unfortunately, this is many times not studied.
In the OT, God says we need to know it in order to thrive.
The Hebrew word is ידע. Knowledge.
More so, it means connection. a mental, or a physical one.
In modern Hebrew (unlike the OT), the common meaning is to know in the sense of mental and not physical.

The more words you have in your vocabulary, the easier it becomes to describe something.
So when things match in a scientific word and a "spiritual" idea, it's kinds of cool.

As an example, the idea of everything is one:
Our physics teaches us it is so. We can describe it as mathematical equations.
Our biology teaches us it is so. We describe it as evolution.
Our society teaches us it is so. We can describe it as "social influences".
Our science teaches us that everything we know of is actually one thing.

It's kind of cool it is easier to describe something that 1000 years ago, you had no way of describing it without sounding a "spiritualist".

 

[Audie]

The world globes itself in a drop of dew.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

And Feynman pointed out that if you
knew all there is to know about that water, you"d
pretty much know the mysteries of the
universe.

 

[sealchan]

Why do some people think that using science to "explain" any form of theism is a right way to understand belief in a God?

In discussion of theism science are useless since science do not "know" the unseen, so they can not verify a "result" if religion or spiritual teaching is discussed it has to be done by the teaching of each spiritual teaching. Not by use of science.

Science is good at understanding the unseen and can even produce evidence of its existence. The problem is when theists claim facts when they should stick to exploring non-evidentiary truths such as possibilities, values and imaginal, inspirational ideas. God becomes more objective the more you constrain God to be a matter of human psychology.

 

[Bird123]

Why do some people think that using science to "explain" any form of theism is a right way to understand belief in a God?

In discussion of theism science are useless since science do not "know" the unseen, so they can not verify a "result" if religion or spiritual teaching is discussed it has to be done by the teaching of each spiritual teaching. Not by use of science.

Science. First one must crawl before one can learn to walk. Basing everything on the physical laws of the universe is easier, however the rest can not be ignored. Seeing only the surface of things, one can choose to ignore that which exists beyond the surface.

Though science appears to be very smart, there is more that they do not know than do. Still, they are walking in the right direction in order to Discover it all as well as God. Quantum physics will open the doors to a much wider view.

Spiritual teaching is crawling as well. So much is said about God that simply isn't true. People coming from the Spiritual side have a harder road as it is difficult to define the spiritual within the physical terms of this universe.

God gave everyone a different view to guaranty mankind a larger view than any one person could have. Spiritual people and the physical people need each other in order to help the other see the view they are missing. They may not agree, however the view is out in the open.

One is no more important than the other. In time, through all the learning and mistakes on the journey, they will come together and Discover what actually IS.

The base or common ground they all should hold to is Math. Everything must and will add up perfectly when all the knowledge is known. If it does not add up perfectly, one is either lacking real knowledge or one is wandering from the path of Real Truth.

Through wandering, one can attempt to create a world of beliefs. On the other hand, in time, one will Discover that Reality will end up being Better.

Each chooses their path. Each chooses what they want to learn. Since there is an almost infinite numbers of views, there is an infinite numbers of paths. In time, all the paths will all lead to the very same place. When one understands all sides, intelligence makes the best choices.

What stories will we all have after we get there? It's going to be Glorious!!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[firedragon]

It is not like that, PureX. I believe that 'physical energy' is the only building block in the universe and that all that exists is that only. That is the best available theory supported by science, that is why I believe that. It is not that there is no support for it. I understand that there is more to know. Can the theists show even that much? Incidentally, Hindus term 'what exists' as Brahman.

Science says that energy was one part of the Big Bang, and so is time, matter. So it is not like energy was there before all of this.

You have a religious faith that is not even philosophically reasoned.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So it is not like energy was there before all of this.
You have a religious faith that is not even philosophically reasoned.

We do not fully know that yet - what was there before inflation? There are many theories. Quantum Mechanics throws up possibilities which cannot be philosophically while reasoned by us sitting on a sofa. It requires confirmation by observation and experiments. It is an on going research and it is beyond our capabilities.

"Dark fluid goes beyond dark matter and dark energy in that it predicts a continuous range of attractive and repulsive qualities under various matter density cases. Indeed, special cases of various other gravitational theories are reproduced by dark fluid, e.g. inflation, quintessence, k-essence, f(R), Generalized Einstein-Aether f(K), MOND, TeVeS, BSTV, etc. Dark fluid theory also suggests new models, such as a certain f(K+R) model that suggests interesting corrections to MOND that depend on redshift and density.[citation needed]."
Dark fluid - Wikipedia

 

[firedragon]

We do not fully know that yet - what was there before inflation?

Right. Then why are you trying to justify Brahman based on your baseline energy theory if you "dont know"? Is not that exactly how you as a self proclaimed atheist define theists?

At least, theists have some kind of philosophical argument, you dont even have that for brahman. Only a faith statement based on faith alone.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is the best possibility available as of now. If science comes up with some thing other than that, I will accept that. I see no reason to accept an eternal God.

 

[YoursTrue]

Its super simple.
There are no poisonous snakes in antarctica.
None on the island where paul claims viper bite.
If you think i am making it up, google for yourself.

I don't think you're making up these ideas. I have no good reason to doubt the account though. I did do some research on this, and believe it or not, here's what I think is a reasonable explanation as to why no vipers are currently found on Malta: Big changes have taken place since the first century C.E. Malta is now one of the most densely populated countries in the world whereas extensive wooded areas may have existed there in Paul’s time. Therefore the population increase would have had a definite effect on the wildlife. This could certainly have caused all vipers to disappear, as was the case in Arran, an island off the SW coast of Scotland. As late as 1853, however, a viper is reported to have been seen near St. Paul’s Bay.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is the best possibility available as of now. If science comes up with some thing other than that, I will accept that. I see no reason to accept an eternal God.

I understand your reasoning here, but I must say that it is clear (to me and some others) that animals (no, I do not include humans in the animal sphere so when I say animals I mean ants, gorillas, lions, etc I don't mean humans) do not wonder about or contemplate whether or not eternal life exists. Only humans do in various formats. This is proof, partially, that God himself planted the idea in human minds of never dying.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. so when I say animals I mean ants, gorillas, lions, etc I don't mean humans) do not wonder about or contemplate whether or not eternal life exists. Only humans do in various formats. This is proof, partially, that God himself planted the idea in human minds of never dying.

It is the fear of death and annihilation that puts this idea in human mind and not any God. That is why resurrection and reincarnation in religions, clutching at the straws.

 

[Audie]

I don't think you're making up these ideas. I have no good reason to doubt the account though. I did do some research on this, and believe it or not, here's what I think is a reasonable explanation as to why no vipers are currently found on Malta: Big changes have taken place since the first century C.E. Malta is now one of the most densely populated countries in the world whereas extensive wooded areas may have existed there in Paul’s time. Therefore the population increase would have had a definite effect on the wildlife. This could certainly have caused all vipers to disappear, as was the case in Arran, an island off the SW coast of Scotland. As late as 1853, however, a viper is reported to have been seen near St. Paul’s Bay.

Oh, I believe there's more than one possible
explanation for there being no vipers, or else
being vipers. Some say it was some other island.

Hong Kong is noted for dense population,
but on HK island, heaviest population,
there are king cobras, Chinese cobras,
other venemous snakes and pythons.
Malta has several extant snakes species.
A little mote research on your part
and you would have noticed that, plus
that there actually is one venemous
snake on Malts!
But sure...possible there were vipers back
then but not now.
Still, its the combo of several implausible items
that make for a fishy story, dont you think so?

Sure, dog could have eaten homework.
If the story requires a specially trained
anti homework dog though, plus some more
dubious details...

Lets see what else does not add up.

Gathering sticks.
I doubt I would mistake a snake for a stick, but
possible. Mistaking it for a stick after I touched
it? Not noticing it is wriggling or hanging limp?
So unsticklike. So hard not to notice.

Vipers tend to bite. For some reason this one
didnt. Possible but..we'd guess you or anyone
would not care to gamble the odds.

So he gathers the snake and some more sticks
all in a bundle, snake still doesn't bite.

This would be quite a show if someone needed
to re enact it in court.


Snake holds still doesn't crawl out and drop to the ground. Possible but the unlikely.

Anti homework dog sneaked in and hid under
the bed, was never actually seen.

Anyway, snake behaves nively till everyone can see.
Then, it does something completely out of character,
which is, it fastens on his hand!

A viper bite is so quick you just see a flicker.
of movement. ( I have seen it lots of times)
You dont see the bite at all.
They do not fasten. Horses dont get up
back end first.
So.
Whats with that?
Next, Paul thrashes the snake about,
and into the fire.
Now, you may have been around snakes.
Youve seen how people got hysterical,
how so few know one from another.
How people believr things like
" three srep" that being how far
you get after a bite.

A viper bite would sting but serious
symptoms are slow developing.

Our spectators are identified as ignorant
and superstitious, are they not?
They clearly dont know the actual effect of viper bite!
Yet they all correctly identify a viprr being thrashed about in the rain, behaving in an unprecedented way. And figure something is up because
something impossible does not happen!

IF "Paul" actually managed a public snake bite,
it was not by a viper.

No matter, the rubes would be just as
impressed by a harmless one.
Paul would not be real likely to know what
a viper waved about in the rain looks like either.

Whaddya think of that?

 

[tom foolery]

Why do some people think that using science to "explain" any form of theism is a right way to understand belief in a God?

In discussion of theism science are useless since science do not "know" the unseen, so they can not verify a "result" if religion or spiritual teaching is discussed it has to be done by the teaching of each spiritual teaching. Not by use of science.

this is just my own thought on the matter, but i think that people try to find their own way to explain existence, or god. they work with the tools they have. if they have only science as their tool then that is what they use. with the greatest of respect, why would you belittle their search for god because it is different from your own?

 

[Spirit of Light]

this is just my own thought on the matter, but i think that people try to find their own way to explain existence, or god. they work with the tools they have. if they have only science as their tool then that is what they use. with the greatest of respect, why would you belittle their search for god because it is different from your own?

I do not belittle anyones search...personally I do not believe science can give answer to spiritual question, so it is best to not Mix those two.

But others has same right to only believe in science.

My views have changed a lot since I wrote that OP

 

[tom foolery]

I do not belittle anyones search...personally I do not believe science can give answer to spiritual question, so it is best to not Mix those two.

But others has same right to only believe in science.

My views have changed a lot since I wrote that OP

then i apologise. i did not check the date of the thing i responded to. i expect this is entirely my fault. but as i said, in a less succinct way, when your only tool is a hammer every problem starts to look like a nail.

 

[Spirit of Light]

then i apologise. i did not check the date of the thing i responded to. i expect this is entirely my fault. but as i said, in a less succinct way, when your only tool is a hammer every problem starts to look like a nail.

No problem at all you seem to be a nice new member

 

[Joshua Pryce]

Why do some people think that using science to "explain" any form of theism is a right way to understand belief in a God?

In discussion of theism science are useless since science do not "know" the unseen, so they can not verify a "result" if religion or spiritual teaching is discussed it has to be done by the teaching of each spiritual teaching. Not by use of science.

This is technically untrue. Because miracles have scientific origin. A healing of a headache has different factors but in all cases including when a miracle taken place, science can explain the answer, but not the journey to recovery.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is the fear of death and annihilation that puts this idea in human mind and not any God. That is why resurrection and reincarnation in religions, clutching at the straws.

I don't think the Bible was clutching at straws. That you and others do not believe it as an accurate account holds nothing new. Now what I find fascinating, while we're on the subject, is that scientists believe somehow life came from non-life, yet life goes back to non-life.