There is no God?

[Patman]

When I was a kid going to Sunday school. I couldn't believe the B.S. I use to love science and how it dispelled God. But to please my grandmother I finished and I was confirmed. The whole time lying.
Then five months ago my girlfriend of eight years died. Now I'm even more confused. Because now I want to believe in God and one day see my girlfriend once again. But then I get pissed off that she was taken away and who do you blame God. Then all the years of science come back to mind and I'm blaming someone that doesn't exist.
Blind faith just doesn't do it for me! I need something more tangible. Something I can touch or at least see. As far as I can tell religion was made up to give the weak, strength. The fearless, fear. The lost, direction. But above all a basic moral structure.

[Bebelina]

It must have been , and still is I guess, a devastating experience to lose a loved person after so many years.

God is a very personal experience and can never be proven in the physical world with science. However, "God", or whatever we prefer to call it, is an entity of great love and compassion built up from the energies of this universe. We are all part of that energy. We, togehter , are God.

But that is of course my personal experience, you may have another one, just as valid as mine.

Hugs
Bebelina

[dan1123]

You might take a look at this <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1885849524/qid=998952804/sr=1-2/ref=sc_b_2/002-0807048-4460054">book</a>. It goes on solid research and interviews with scientists about the evidence of God.

God as represented in the Bible is not against science--and many good scientists attribute their discoveries to their Biblical beliefs. This is a good place to start.

[Cris]

Patman,

What religions do very well is thrive on the weak, frail, and vulnerable, especially at times when someone has died.

Since early times man has had enormous difficulties coming to terms with the non-existence of someone loved, there is that overwhelming feeling of helplessness and frustration at not being able to bring back the loved one who has died.

These feelings are the root cause of every religion. Once man realized that he could do nothing to bring back the dead he then dreamed of other ways that he could reach them. From that came the ideas of an after-life, and in that dream came satisfaction and a level of contentment that gave hope and enabled man to continue life with an expectation that he would one day see those loved ones again.

Following the ideas of an after-life came other ideas of a great benefactor who would protect man from harm. This too is based purely on early man’s vulnerability to agony, pain, suffering, and numerous diseases (that we have now mostly cured). He again needed something to believe that life could not be so bad and that a father-like figure would one day give a relief to such a terrible life. From these desires the ideas of gods were manufactured.

Right up to the present time no one has ever been able to show that an after-life or any gods exist or can exist. With such overwhelming lack of evidence it is only reasonable to assume that such thoughts are no more than self-delusions.

To face the obvious and hard facts of death and the non-existence of someone loved can be hard and requires courage. I cannot offer you anything that can replace the dreams of an after-life or gods since there is nothing there but words; those are the facts of life and death.

But science offers hope since it is the search for truth and knowledge; it is based on facts and proofs, whereas religions are based on delusions, false hopes and dreams. The two can never be mixed and their aims are mutually exclusive.

When someone offers you something fantastic then question it, and ask what proof is there that this thing is real? If no proof is offered then decline the fantasy and request they work harder to offer something real and worthwhile.

Science can be hard but the answers it provides are real and worthwhile.

Cris

[dan1123]

Since early times man has had enormous difficulties coming to terms with the non-existence of someone loved, there is that overwhelming feeling of helplessness and frustration at not being able to bring back the loved one who has died....These feelings are the root cause of every religion.

WRONG. Completely, utterly, and entirely <B>WRONG</B>. You are a shortsighted bigot for saying such things. You deny the very essence of humanity because of your stupid and ill-thought-out ideals. The very essence of humanity denys the answer of death being final. These thoughts and feelings could not have evolved, and these feelings all point to a God who is there, and made things that should be better than this. Where does our sense of right and wrong, of justice, of revoltion over death, or of <B>turmoil over the severe injustice of this world</B> come from? You deny everyone's humanity so you can have your "truth and knowledge". Truth and knowledge doesn't answer our humanity. Truth and knowledge doesn't answer who we are. Truth and knowledge are a dead end to a world of people needing justice and comfort. "Facing a cold hard truth" is just another way of saying "deny your own humanity". Get off it Chris. Making the world lesser won't make science more powerful, and doesn't help you to control it. You have no answers for real human problems, so don't pull others down with you.

[Cris]

Dan,

The very essence of humanity denies the answer of death being final.

Of course it does. Our extremely powerful evolutionary survival instincts that have managed so well to keep us alive must inevitably conflict with having to face eventual death. If we didn’t have that distaste for accepting death then our survival would have been questionable.

These thoughts and feelings could not have evolved, and these feelings all point to a God who is there,

BS. Survival is the single most powerful evolutionary drive and force for any living creature. Gods are purely imaginary concepts with no basis in fact.

Where does our sense of right and wrong, of justice, of revoltion over death, or of <B>turmoil over the severe injustice of this world</B> come from?

All of these things point unerringly to an instinctive and intellectual desire to survive. We have successfully survived because we have evolved that way.

You deny everyone's humanity so you can have your "truth and knowledge". Truth and knowledge doesn't answer our humanity. Truth and knowledge doesn't answer who we are. Truth and knowledge are a dead end to a world of people needing justice and comfort.

What you are suggestion then is the alternatives to truth and knowledge which are lies and deceit, and that is exactly what religions sell, especially Christianity. There are no complete answers yet because we are still looking. Deceiving ourselves into believing a fantasy figure is guiding us before we have found the answers is irresponsible.

"Facing a cold hard truth" is just another way of saying "deny your own humanity".

Facing cold hard truths means facing reality and accepting the difficulties that life presents us. Overcoming those difficulties through hard work, study, experimentation, research and curiosity is how we solve problems and find answers. Believing that an invisible and immaterial fantasy will save us is the height of self-delusion. Trying to actively convince others of such fairy stories is immoral.

Making the world lesser won't make science more powerful, and doesn't help you to control it. You have no answers for real human problems, so don't pull others down with you.

Facing reality is not so hard as you think, try it some time. Finding answers means we need to work together if we are to continue to survive.

Cris

[KalvinB]

I may be wrong but my view is that if a church (a minister) preys on the weak (minded or otherwise) that minister should be immediatly fired. In the OT such ministers (prophets) were put to death.

Science and religion are two unrelated topics. One does not disprove the other. Why any of you have come to the conclusion that they conflict in any significant way is beyond me.

Until I can part the mighty mississippi I don't expect to convince you that God is real since apparently it's really a stretch to see how he works for those who reject him(her whatever) because they're above such things.

He sends the prophets they're murdered. He sends 10 plagues and parts the Red Sea they deny him. He comes himself and does miracles and they still deny it. They murder him. He writes a book, it's burned.

Ben

[Rambler]

You Wrote:
"He sends the prophets they're murdered. He sends 10 plagues and parts the Red Sea they deny him. He comes himself and does miracles and they still deny it. They murder him. He writes a book, it's burned. "


I take it from the way that is writen you must be an eyewitness...otherwise he did nothing because he doesn't exist.

Back to the topic at hand:

I don't know about no God...I certainly agree there is no Christain God....at least I hope so, otherwise I'm a creation of a cruel idiot...and that would suck, I'd be making reservations in Hell....wow imagine spending eternity with God bother's now there's MY hell defined. But I have faith that if there is a superior inteligents its laughing as hard as I am at all the morons (no apololgies, if you can read you have no excuse for being a christain) jumping on the Jesus wagon.

[KalvinB]

The point is that there is nothing I can do to prove to you that God exists. People will believe what they want to believe and will find millions of reasons to believe it.

"God the cruel idiot."

Yeah. A God who allows man to be wicked and then lets them into Heaven anyway if they just stop thinking they deserve something is one cruel God.

It's been over 2000 years since the phrase "ex nihlio" was written in Genesis 1:1 and scientists are just now begining to think and prove that the universe came from nothing.

I'm sure it was just a fluke. Moses didn't actually "know" the universe came from nothing. Now the scientists are hard at work trying to prove that there was no need for a cause, no need for God. Good luck and have fun.

Maybe in another 2000 years they'll have the answer. I'm not going to wait.

Ben

[Tiassa]

Dan--

Wow ... um ... okay, I'll start with the shorter post:

many good scientists attribute their discoveries to their Biblical beliefs.

A reference I'm currently searching for comes from A&E network's Biography, an episode on drug use in America. Among the many testimonials was a computer scientist who participated in Stanford University's research on the drug in the 1950's. Restricting the seemingly positive tales told by others, we might focus in on this one gentleman who said that on acid he could "walk" on the transistor board, "touch" each device on the board, "read" their product and serial numbers ... from this perspective he was finally able to understand how he was supposed to put the board together to make it work. Here a good scientist attributed his accomplishment in part to LSD: do we owe the compound credit for the modern PC?

The point I'm after here is that it's true that many good scientists attribute their discoveries to Biblical beliefs. They also adapt their personal theologies to accommodate the knowledge they've acquired. As Patman noted in his topic post, science helped him dispel the notion of the God to which he had been introduced. This is simply the way it played out; had God, as such, communicated Himself better to Patman, then perhaps science would have reinforced his understanding of God; but if God exists, It has determined this path for Patman.

Often what those scientists cite is the work ethic they learned from their faith; without it, they would not have made their discoveries. And, certainly, scientists attempting to verify the Bible is perfectly acceptable, and given the relative periods of the Bible and the development of the scientific method and its accompanient standard, it is fair to assert that these investigations into the Bible produced many interesting and compelling results. But none have proven God, nor the Great Flood in the strictly Biblical context (e.g.--acceptable to the literalist); I suppose I should buy the book to learn in what context these discoveries relate to the Biblical belief that inspired them, but if you'd be so kind as to supply us a couple of examples specifically for examination as relates your assertion and its context, we'd be grateful.

One of the reviews at the Amazon page noted that scientists like Stephen Hawking discuss how their discoveries relate to the big questions we all ask. In that sense, does this mean that Hawking is relating to the same perspective of God that any other person holds? That basis for relation is as important to the equation as the discovery itself.

WRONG. Completely, utterly, and entirely WRONG. You are a shortsighted bigot for saying such things. You deny the very essence of humanity because of your stupid and ill-thought-out ideals ....

Wow ... was there a point to that tantrum other than to enact the principle Cris described? I tend to think the superstitions motivating religion are simpler than grief itself, but the point Cris offers is still valid.

The very essence of humanity denys the answer of death being final.

What is the line 'twixt soul and psyche? I tend to think the denial of the finality of death is based in manifold greeds and fears. We fear death because it is unknown. We develop faith to make it known. We are greedy because we do not wish to lose those treasures of earth and spirit we acquire in life; we refine our faith to offer greater rewards. It is merely psychological comfort upon which we stake the futures of our souls.

These thoughts and feelings could not have evolved, and these feelings all point to a God who is there, and made things that should be better than this.

And why not? It's called learning. And bad ideas can be learned perhaps more easily than good ones. If one's teachers operate in a state of denial, then the context of that denial will permeate the teachings. Thus, as a child learns to relate to emotion, the child imitates its role models in this as much as in any other. And what of faith? It can evolve? Emotions cannot? Psychological reactions to emotion cannot? Why am I not still afraid of the dark? And how did I get to be so in the first place, since my childhood fears were centered around ideas that I had to learn?

Where does our sense of right and wrong, of justice, of revoltion over death, or of turmoil over the severe injustice of this world come from?

Well, to give a personal example: my sense of right and wrong is derived from Western values; however, I somewhere acquired the ability to perceive certain dichotomies 'twixt theory and execution--certes, the values are good, but the results have largely been hurtful. I choose to reject the hurtful method in pursuit of the deeper truth of right and wrong I have learned from Judeo-Christian, Western society.

To be more primal about it, our revulsion toward death is inherent in our living experience. The religiously-inspired considerations derive from psychological devices designed to combat the overwhelming fear of death that would otherwise keep us distracted.

You deny everyone's humanity so you can have your "truth and knowledge".

Um ... yeah. That made sense. I'm going to usurp Cris on this and declare, Says you.

Truth and knowledge doesn't answer our humanity. Truth and knowledge doesn't answer who we are. Truth and knowledge are a dead end to a world of people needing justice and comfort.

Truth and knowledge have their dictionary definitions that suffice well enough. People place value on truth and knowledge. Sometimes, they place so much value on truth and knowledge that their greed compels them to seek anything, call it truth and knowledge, and act from there without ever having attained knowledge, much less enough knowledge to know truth. At this point, your words describe truth and knowledge, but not before.

"Facing a cold hard truth" is just another way of saying "deny your own humanity".

Who says you can't rail against the cold hard truth in quest of your humanity? To the other, when I read your quote I'm left grinning at the romantic notions of it, and can only repeat what I've said before: Says you.

Making the world lesser won't make science more powerful, and doesn't help you to control it.

Something about science and making the world lesser? Before the scientific method there were four elements. Now there's well over a hundred. What do you mean by making the world lesser? Reducing the amount of romantic grandeur assigned it by our psychological devices?

You have no answers for real human problems, so don't pull others down with you.

Who does have answers for real human problems? And you can't say the Bible, as history demonstrates the answer for any real human problem is probably detrimental to humans. So who? The answer nobody is apparently so unacceptable a truth for so many people that they turn to religion. You may see a dragging down of things in Cris' philosophy, but I don't. I'm quite sure that an evening spent on the California coast drinking and philosophizing with the man would produce far less formal tones than we see in the debates here. Of course, I would also venture that we would have less to debate, and more to ponder and reflect on. And that kind of venturing into the human potential is not dragging anyone down; it only stands to drag anyone down should we decide in faith to have found truth and attempt to make that truth universal practice.

Cris--

So, accepting the difference 'twixt speech and the typewritten word, do people in real life get flustered and call you "Frank"?

KelvinB--

I may be wrong but my view is that if a church (a minister) preys on the weak (minded or otherwise) that minister should be immediatly fired.

I would venture the accusation that such a principle is known to those preachers who become the church and prey on the weak-minded. Televangelism, threatening theology ... it's all bad for the adherents, who make poor decisions in quest of a salvation they're told they don't deserve. To the other, were I a little bit colder, I'd say Who cares, it's their lives to throw away ....

Why any of you have come to the conclusion that they conflict in any significant way is beyond me.

Some of us don't think they do. In fact, there are readings of the Bible that I'm sure Cris, for instance, would accept, but those are insufficient to the faithful because they would not constitute grounds for his adoption of the faith. There are readings of the Bible that make perfect sense to me, but they seem to deflate the sense of superiority enjoyed by so many faithful. In terms of Sciforums' debates on the conflict ... well, it comes up, and suddenly people are debating a form of religion which does conflict with science.

Until I can part the mighty mississippi I don't expect to convince you that God is real since apparently it's really a stretch to see how he works for those who reject him(her whatever) because they're above such things.

I agree with you about the Mississippi, and yes, gods can be a stretch to believe. But to say one rejects the godheads because the one is above such things is a little assumptive, don't you think? I reject virtually all of the forms of the Christian God I've encountered on the grounds that they simply don't apply in the real world. People can downplay the past sins of Christian institutions and individuals, but the problem I have with that downplay is that the alternative it offers does not match with my experience among the faithful, nor with my reading of the Bible. In my corner of the nation, to be "above such things" in such a manner is a negative term, so perhaps I'm reading an implication of snobbery into your words which isn't actually there. But I do think there is a difference between how I perceive your words and the reality they relate to.

He sends the prophets they're murdered. He sends 10 plagues and parts the Red Sea they deny him. He comes himself and does miracles and they still deny it. They murder him. He writes a book, it's burned.

Faith, faith, faith, and whatever one chooses to believe. Faith. Not true. Yeah, it's been burned, but come on ... poor Bible! Maybe they shouldn't have used it as firestarters for all the witches.

Welcome to Sciforums, sir ... we hope you enjoy your time here.

Patman--

I'm not ignoring your post ... I can't think of any issues to take up from it at the time. Welcome to the Forums ....

thanx,
Tiassa

[Stretch]

If I may ...

My ex and myself were the known Gods who created our son. There was none, we came together in love ... then there was one. ( a divine experience) I am the tangible god who interacts with my beloved son. I am not invisible, confusing nor tyrannical. I act from my own natural human empathy, compassion and inner being, not from an incoherent politico/religious book of antiquity. I draw knowledge and the wisdom of experience from the Gods who created me - my parents and the Gods before them.

Taking this approach back into the ancient mists of time, I am comfortable with the idea of natural evolution, inclusive of myself.

I have a hope that our watchmaker is not blind, but this hope can never blind me to the revelations of science, my appreciation of the great human minds of the present and the past, nor to the bloodshed, inhumanity, futility and total uncertainty of faith.

Taking ones eyes off the enjoyment and experience of the present and material, and focusing ones life on the hereafter and immaterial, is enslavement of ones human potential to an unknown god.

Take care

[dan1123]

My ex and myself were the known Gods who created our son.

You may have borne a son through processes already in place and unknown to you as to how they worked. Without the power to create the universe and time itself (therefore existing outside of both), you cannot claim to be a god.

Often what those scientists cite is the work ethic they learned from their faith;

Work ethic? How about the philosophy grounded in an intelligent being who does things ingeniously and elegantly that guides their discovery. This is what I see most often.

In that sense, does this mean that Hawking is relating to the same perspective of God that any other person holds?

You are so mired in human perspectives of God. If religion is all humanity trying to reach God it will fail. If it is God trying to reach humanity it will succeed. Christianity does not have the marks of humanity trying to reach God. The innate sense of God's presence in the design of the world is enough to get most people to look towards a creator--however, it takes God coming to us in order to go the rest of the way.

And why not? It's called learning.

Why would our evolution place any ideas of perfection or goodness in our minds? Think about it before saying that it helps the species survive--because it does not. Thousands of species survived without religion, without worshipping a god, without getting angry with injustice or death. In fact, death would <i>help</i> the survival of the species because it reduces the population and takes out the weaker parts of a species. Justice, equal rights for all, and our value for human life actually hurts our species in the long run from an evolutionary standpoint. And if you say it is us now who control our own evolution, you should be very frightened because it isn't the first worlds' best and brightest who are doing all the breeding--that is where the population has stopped or is decreasing.

We fear death because it is unknown.

It is more than fear. We look at other people and clench our teeth at the injustice of death, we look at someone who died with the horror of seeing someone who is cold and lifeless. The fact of death pulls at us in a way that we know that <i>this shouldn't happen</i>. (At least not to certain people) This shows why man still needs God, even with all our knowledge and learning in science. This has no forseeable end in the future.

And you can't say the Bible, as history demonstrates the answer for any real human problem is probably detrimental to humans.

Only in your myopic view of history, which apparently doesn't include the Bible's role in liberating women and slaves, helping the poor, creating the first true democratic republic, creating the first hospitals to help the sick, and creating the first schools to teach. Humanity is a lot better off because of the Bible and because of Christians who follow it.

Our extremely powerful evolutionary survival instincts that have managed so well to keep us alive must inevitably conflict with having to face eventual death.

So does your version of evolution not include a survival of the fittest? Does your version not include death as a necessary part of evolution? Wouldn't evolution prepare its species for death? Wouldn't natural selection kill off those who grieved for their loved ones? If it is all about survival, then it should be the species that is paramount--not the person. However, humanity seems to believe that it is the person that is paramount. The larger the number of deaths, the less people tend to care--they are just faceless masses after all.

Overcoming those difficulties through hard work, study, experimentation, research and curiosity is how we solve problems and find answers.

How can you experiment with one you have loved and who has died? How will any amount of scientific study and knowledge help? The scientific method has its place, but it doesn't seem to include reasons why we are here, why bad things happen to good people, and what comes after death. You can choose to be minimalist and place the littlest amount beyond science to answer these questions, but this it is beyond science--and ultimately unsatisfying.

Believing that an invisible and immaterial fantasy will save us is the height of self-delusion. Trying to actively convince others of such fairy stories is immoral.

I have plenty of evidence for my "fantasy". I have researched from books that have no bias, bias against, and bias for Christianity. Evidence like the beginning of the Christian church after a man dies on a cross with only twenty followers left--in the same city and time period where He died. Evidence like the way the Bible lines up with what we have recently found to be true about the beginning of the universe. Evidence like the counter-intuitive claims of the Bible and how writers told the people who they were writing to where they could find eyewitnesses to the accounts that they claimed--and how one physician went to these eyewitnesses and put together what he researched into an account of Jesus that the Bible includes today. These are not the marks of a fairy story. Lumping it into the category of fantasies doesn't make it one.

[Cris]

Stretch, Hi old friend, some nice comments.

Tiassa, I think you posed me some questions there, or at least I feel the need to add more, but thanks for expanding on my usual overly brief statements. I guess I've come to expect you to add the real flesh to the skeletons I create. I have to do some real work now but I'll come back later.

Cris

[Patman]

I realize now just how badly I need to learn how to use this computer. I apologize for my lack of ability!
Bebelina , Thanx for the kind words and thought.
Dan1123, You mention a book!?
Cris , It's not that they pray on these people when someone dies, just in general. But in a way I relate this to the gangs and biker clubs popping up all over the place. Don't mean to offend! But it seems to me that these people are "weak" in some way. Be it loneliness, lack of a loving family, or just to be part of something. The church is the oldest club on the planet.
Dan 1123, Dan,Dan Please don't get your panties in a bunch. Name calling WON'T change peoples views. (I'm guessing your somewhat religious and opinionated.) What is the essence of humanity? FEAR TRUTH AND KNOWLEDGE!
Cris, sorry I got you into that one. MY BAD! , You handle yourself very well. thanx for not resulting to anything juvenile.
"AN OPEN MIND IS THE GATEWAY TO KNOWLEDGE!" SORRY DAN!
KalvinB , Sorry to offend anyone but it seems since it's inception the church has always preyed on the weak. THAT'S A LOT OF BULLETS!
Rambler, Thanx for the input. I would like to believe in a higher power and Christians don't have it. There would be no hell if there was an "ALL FORGIVING GOD !!!!!" I have to forgive everyone that F**cked ME OVER and he can't forgive one! (Lucifer)
KalvinB, Sorry that it's been years. But I don't recall what "ex nihlio" Genesis 1:1 is? Sorry. But the thought of people 2000 years ago believing that we came from nothing is not a stretch. All these baby factories that live in projects and pump out kids they can't afford might just believe the same. Sorry don't mean to offend.
TIASSA, I don't smoke anymore. But I might have to. Your opinions are well thought out and very intelligent. I just hope I never rub you the wrong way. Because I can't match brain pans with you. Keep up the good work and thank you very much for the welcome! I hope to push myself and others towards a better understanding of life. KNOWLEDGE! Sorry Dan.
Stretch, Congratulations on the birth of your son. Forget what anyone says on the matter. To this child you are a God in one sense or another. ENJOY LIFE! ENJOY the LIFE you brought into this WORLD!
DAN, DAN, DAN, Prove that someone had the power to create the universe and time itself and I'll personally ask Stretch to denounce his status as a God.
Everyone! Yeah, YOU TO DAN.
I'm sorry if this is out of format but I did the best I knew how!? I'm new at this but will learn with time and hopefully your patiences.
But please remember a couple of things we are all in this together weather we like it or not and KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!

[Cris]

Patman,

Nice summary, and a good first thread. Most threads are not quite so heated. Many make you learn, others are good fun, and others make you think, and others might make you angry.

But science, the need for proof, and the nead to reason are common for most. The battle between reason and faith is alive and well in the religious forums and there are some great articles in the science forums.

Most here are normal, ordinary people, except perhaps tiassa, who is something special.

Enjoy your time here, even if you don't contribute much there is much to be learnt from others.

Be welcome.

Cris

[KalvinB]

Define weak. It's a very broad unfound statement you present.

Children in religious families are raised on religion just as children in non religious families are raised on their views. To claim one is brainwashing and the other is not is pure rubbish. Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy...yeah you're all so innocent. My parents (religious) refused to let us believe in such things. If they lied about those what credibility do they have with the Bible? As least they didn't knowingly lie to us. And so far I find they havn't lied about religion either.

I could as easily claim it's the weak minded who blindly accept the crap that is found in science and history books used from early childhood.

I don't care that Creation isn't in the books. I just expect as much doubt cast on evolution as evidence in the books. Or at least the book makers to stop presenting it as proven fact. Give both sides or remove it all. I don't want to hear a million variations of how the universe came to be. An honest look at one view would suffice. We don't even get that.

Ex Nihlio simply means "from nothing" and the Bible is the only religious text that presents that idea. Many Christian denominations today deny the idea. Only the old school churches still teach it. None of the new age ones.

Ben

[Patman]

KalvinB, "Weak" Sorry for lack of a better word I tend to group a lot of people as weak.
Weak- Down on your luck.
- In Need of support from other then your family.
- people that just go along with the program.
-people that don't question anything.
I hope that helped.
Question everything because the only true answers are the one's we find for ourselves.

[Tiassa]

Work ethic? How about the philosophy grounded in an intelligent being who does things ingeniously and elegantly that guides their discovery. This is what I see most often.

So what the scientists are getting from their faith that contributes to their discoveries is an inapplicable superstition of faith? What I mean by this can best be illustrated by scientific concepts derived from faith that have since failed: e.g. Primum Mobile.

This model of the Universe described a definitively finite body in which the stars we see were set upon the interior of a hollow sphere, inside which the observable solar system orbited the Earth as the center of God's creation. Intricate, and observationally arguable at the time of its conception, Primum Mobile is observably incorrect. The scientists who achieved this used Biblical ideas as evidence--e.g. the firmament of the heavens.

So I'm wondering about the direct applications; if we must credit Christianity and the Bible for making a scientific discovery possible, or for predating a scientific discovery in its faith assertions, what would be the best example of that you know of?

You are so mired in human perspectives of God.

As history demonstrates, how one interprets the Bible can have serious negative consequences in life; should the Bible prove true, then improper interpretation will have definitive negative consequences upon the day of Judgement. Since we learn the Bible in the human experience, the veracity of human interpretations of the Bible is paramount. We could sit here and argue Hawking's interpretation of the implications of science as relates to Biblical faith, but as we see here at Sciforums, there is a tendency among Christian faithful to denounce other interpretations and to defend the arguments against those interpretations as if they were arguments against the poster's interpretations. If, for instance, Hawking has the "wrong" interpretation of the Bible, then anything he says regarding science and Biblical faith is necessarily subject to the errors of interpretation that create his definition of Biblical faith and his perception of the implications thereof. How people perceive God is of the utmost; it is the living expression of the Biblical endeavor.

If religion is all humanity trying to reach God it will fail. If it is God trying to reach humanity it will succeed.

With the first part, I agree with you; and, applying my accusations of greed and fear to Christianity, we see the faithful in a scramble to reach God, and this is why the religion has failed to actualize the full degree of its living potential. The second part is a bit speculative; God needs not "try" to reach humanity. If God must "try" it means He can fail, and God does not fail; his Will, as I understand Christian faith, is definitive.

Christianity does not have the marks of humanity trying to reach God.

Right, Dan, whatever you say. I would ask, then, about all the bad interpretations that have caused a massive human toll. Had Inquisitors not been so concerned with pleasing and thus reaching God, they would not have held an Inquisition. Had those at Salem not been so determined in their quest to reach God, they would not have undertaken that quest over the corpses of their neighbors. In the modern day, the faithful press for social conformity: this is either greed for human dominion or a quest to keep God's favor by not turning their backs on the least of their sinful neighbors--a need to help turn these souls to God--and demonstrate a desperation akin to the Inquisitors.

The innate sense of God's presence in the design of the world is enough to get most people to look towards a creator--however, it takes God coming to us in order to go the rest of the way.

I would assert that superstition toward those mysteries greater than our capabilities creates that innate sense of God. It all comes down to fear.

Why would our evolution place any ideas of perfection or goodness in our minds? Think about it before saying that it helps the species survive--because it does not.

Well enough, but a higher image to strive for in the consciousness--a specific sense of consciousness apparently lacking in those other species you mention--does compel humanity to better itself. But in the larger picture, we realize our shortcomings in relation to ourselves, and envision a state in which those shortcomings are not apparent or present. We must necessarily have a word to describe that theoretical state. Perfection suffices. As to goodness--well, there is life and there is death. We regard life as good and death inspires fear. Therefore life is good. As this sense of good and bad filters down into other priorities, it is applied in the sense of life. Something is good if it makes life easier; something is bad if it makes life more complicated. The things that make life easier and more secure are definitely good for the species. The distractions that make life more difficult and dangerous are bad. It is, in the end, convention achieved by a certain degree of consensus regarding individual interpretation of comfort and challenge.

In fact, death would help the survival of the species because it reduces the population and takes out the weaker parts of a species.

Yes, death does have its benefits. This is among them. It also kills out the stronger parts of the species: death does not discriminate, and does not fear.

Justice, equal rights for all, and our value for human life actually hurts our species in the long run from an evolutionary standpoint.

I'm hoping that's rhetorical. Whether or not you actually believe that sentiment, I'm obliged to tell you it's balderdash. We have come together in society for certain innate reasons: justice, equality, and expressions of human value help preserve the species against its utmost challenge: itself. We have a greater chance of destroying ourselves than the lions, tigers, and bears (oh my!) have of destroying us. Sure, there's the threat of the comet, but that's up to the people to decide that it is important. HIV and other infections? We could attempt to segregate the illness out of society, but this is, in the modern day, nearly impossible; especially given how long some microorganisms can hide while they do their work. The spread of infection would still continue, and we will have removed the data set that allows science to combat illness from availability. The suppression of knowledge that comes with enforced inequality is harmful to humanity; how many prime dreamers, theorists, and philosophers will never contribute to society because they aren't allowed to? (I'll point toward women as an excellent example; it makes me laugh when I see Emma Goldman's rhetoric--ignored for reasons of gender and cultural prejudice--popping up in the "legitimate" avenues of society today, a mere 80-some years late. Prison labor? Marriage? Someone beat the modernists to it, and that someone was a woman. Those lamenting her issues obviously haven't read her essays: they wouldn't carry with them the indignation of believing themselves the first to recognize a concept. It would have served us well to address these issues in the first decades of the 20th century, when they came up.) Justice is bad for humanity ... tell me another; make me laugh harder.

And if you say it is us now who control our own evolution, you should be very frightened because it isn't the first worlds' best and brightest who are doing all the breeding--that is where the population has stopped or is decreasing.

Funny, then, that those breeding the most are also those most prone to religion. As to evolution, well, we evolve. But ideas like "it's a dog-eat-dog world" we can definitely opt out of. It's a matter of choice. Cybernetics--hmm, there's a sticky issue. I can't figure if "artificial" enhancement is actually "natural" in the sense that the Universe accomplishes by its own means. But yes, it's the dumbest and weakest of the gene-pool reproducing as quickly as possible. There's no accounting for that kind of poor taste and irresponsibility unless we include abstractions like rights and duty.

It is more than fear. We look at other people and clench our teeth at the injustice of death, we look at someone who died with the horror of seeing someone who is cold and lifeless. The fact of death pulls at us in a way that we know that this shouldn't happen.

When we know, we know viscerally and subjectively. That sense of knowing is a psychological device that eases our own fears about death, and accommodating our own greed as relates how we regard other people; I enjoy the loss of the benefit of my friends and family no more than anyone else, but their deaths don't necessarily piss me off. If I believe someone shouldn't die, I believe they shouldn't have died in the way they did, that this human loss was preventable in this form. Suicides, murders, overdoses, &c.

This shows why man still needs God, even with all our knowledge and learning in science. This has no forseeable end in the future.

And thus man invents God. Just like fear of fire invokes a fire god in the primitive psyche in order to establish terms of human relationship to fire, so, too, do we invent a God to defeat death and grant us that which we crave most: life.

Only in your myopic view of history, which apparently doesn't include the Bible's role in liberating women and slaves, helping the poor, creating the first true democratic republic, creating the first hospitals to help the sick, and creating the first schools to teach.

Well, you ought to enumerate those ideas, provide examples, and start a topic to examine the merits of such claims. That would be a refreshing change from the typical Biblically-derived discussions we encounter here.

Humanity is a lot better off because of the Bible and because of Christians who follow it.

Like I said, you ought to start a topic and provide those examples. Right now, the shining beacons of Christianity are its living results: the Bible used to justify the cruel slavery of the United States; the Bible used to justify misogyny; the Bible used to justfy murder; the Bible claiming to destroy families; the Bible used to justify warfare ... ad naueseam. Show us the other side, then, please, and demonstrate that this side of Biblical interpretation has the same sense of historical contiguity as the evils of Christianity. The only limitation I would advise is to consider the hypocrisy of those who work in soup kitchens (or other charities) to assuage the guilt of their chosen social policy which creates the need for relief. More specifically, if the benefit of Christian faith is merely the repair of damage caused by Christian faith, it's a null sum.

thanx,
Tiassa

[dan1123]

I would assert that superstition toward those mysteries greater than our capabilities creates that innate sense of God. It all comes down to fear.
...
And thus man invents God. Just like fear of fire invokes a fire god in the primitive psyche in order to establish terms of human relationship to fire, so, too, do we invent a God to defeat death and grant us that which we crave most: life.

People invent nice gods that they can control. They invent gods who are only in one place, can be appeased, or do not really care what we do. People do not invent all-knowing, all-seeing, perfect judges who they cannot get away from. Sure, it may be nice for a dictator to have such a god under his control, but that would mean the dictator invented the god, or at least had power over it. I would like to say that it isn't good for someone to believe in any religion solely based on the comfort that it gives. What kind of comfort would it be anyway? If the god only existed based on that you'd really like to have him/her/it exist, you're just fooling yourself and setting yourself up for disappointment.

This is the reason why I recommended a book based on scientific research that points to God as found in the Bible. What could Patman get from a couple of paragraphs written in a forum? Would that really help? What could Patman get from some statements about God being real from someone who is basically a stranger--no matter how much evidence supports the claim. Only with a some support for belief outside any holy book or statement of dogma could be an honest basis for having any comfort in an invisible deity.

[daktaklakpak]

Originally posted by dan1123

People do not invent all-knowing, all-seeing, perfect judges who they cannot get away from.

Why not? Since it's invented, the inventor knows it's not true. So such all-knowing, all-seeing, perfect judges can be used to control other not so critical thinking people.

Sure, it may be nice for a dictator to have such a god under his control, but that would mean the dictator invented the god, or at least had power over it.

That's how religions work in the old days.

I would like to say that it isn't good for someone to believe in any religion solely based on the comfort that it gives. What kind of comfort would it be anyway?

Eternal live, paradise, heaven, and life after death. Are these not comfort enough? Without these comfort, I doubt anyone will join.

If the god only existed based on that you'd really like to have him/her/it exist, you're just fooling yourself and setting yourself up for disappointment.

Worshiping an unpredictable god is a very dangerous act.