Why do we need a God?

Your mind, for starters.

:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Okay, I've got that, but what tool should my mind use to evaluate spiritual/religious claims?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Concentration, discernment. Precision, consistency. Goodwill.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Got all of those already, still coming to the same conclusions about spiritual/religious claims. Thoughts?

 

The question is, in what measure you have those qualities.

Everyone has some concentration, some discernmet, some precision, some consistency, some goodwill.

But in order to make any kind of progress, these need to be cultivated, or one remains stagnant.

 

No, the question is why people can have all of these things and still not achieve the same results with the same input about spiritual/religious matters. That would indicate, to me, that these do not represent a valid way to evaluate and understand such claims.

Got any other tools in your toolbag there that might actually work?

 

Are you saying that your concentration is perfect, your discernment is perfect, your precision is perfect, your consistency is perfect, and that you have limitless goodwill?

 

@wynn --

1. All humans have these traits.

2. If these traits represent a valid tool for the evaluation of spiritual/religious claims then the output of this tool should be roughly equivalent for all people(within the error bar of course).

3. Since the output side varies so widely as to make different people's conclusions mutually exclusive, they can not represent a valid tool for such evaluation.

Try again to answer my question.

What tool should we use to evaluate and understand spiritual/religious claims?

 

They don't have them in the same measures, hence they come to different findings.

 

@wynn --

I disagree. Normal humans possess the same traits in roughly the same measures, the differences lie in how people use these traits.

 

But the science/the scientists can't really prove/disprove the unprovable: universe they say was created in the big bang, they don't have direct proofs only circumstancial proofs/evidences plus scientists can see only this observable, visible part of the universe, we only have indirect, circumstancial evidences, it's a matter of belief or non-belief. The same can be said for life after physical death, ghosts and etc..., one thing is to directly proving something, the other thing is theorizing about how might something happened and why did it happen.
So, when you're dealing with something so complex and extreme, you say I think, I believe this how something was created, or how something works, or how something happened.
Also, I need to mention, no matter how intelligent scientists are, we/they have upper limits, and if we/the scientists are limited in terms of intellect, than both science and technology have their upper limits as well and somehow I think that the science/the scientists are close to these upper limits when it comes to understanding and proving/disproving their hypotheses/theories.
Cheers.

 

Even if we go with your disgreement:

Why is it that people use these traits differently?

 

@wynn --

That question has so many different possible answers that it deserves it's own thread. It could be the influence of their parents, friends, culture, religion(which could be considered a part of their culture), genetic influences(though I think that these are likely to be very minimal), or even pure whimsy.

However none of this invalidates the remaining points I made as you didn't disagree with my premise that all humans share these traits. Given that all humans possess these traits, the application of these traits as a tool to evaluate and understand spiritual/religious claims should give roughly consistent results. The fact that it doesn't means that these are not a valid tool for such evaluations.

So, are there any other tools that we can use to evaluate and understand spiritual/religious claims?

@Gravage --

I'll get back to you in a bit because I've been trying to get this question answered for the better part of a month now and this is the first time anyone has even attempted to do so, so I'd like to focus my attention on this.

 

How are you supposed to discuss what tool one is supposed to use when you are already convinced you have the right one?

(and further balk at the opportunity, in post 340, to discuss the nature of why this doesn't work and what does)?
:shrug:

 

@LG --

Bullshit.

I have already stated that I've accepted, for the sake of the discussion, that science isn't the right tool. Then I asked you why it isn't the right tool and what the right tool is. You have yet to answer either of those questions.

Until you answer one or both of those questions I will refuse to do anything but repeat those questions.

So. What is the proper tool to use to evaluate and understand spiritual/religious claims? Why does this tool supposedly work better than science?

In other words, explain yourself and thoroughly defend your assertions which have remained completely undefended up until now.

 

then why balk like you did in post 340?

:shrug:

 

@LG --

Because I don't what your comparisons, I want a valid, logical explanation.

However before that I need to know what we're talking about, so how about you answer my questions?

Start with what tool should we use to evaluate and understand spiritual/religious claims?

 

I hate to play armchair psychologist, but some insight into the psychology of the nature of the interactions between the two of you might help to explain the frustration one or both of you is feeling (and that is shared by the rest of us watching).

It seems that Arioch wants LG to convince (defeat?) him, but he also wants to be convinced on his own terms. The logical consequence of this is that Arioch will never become convinced this way, and the dispute can potentially go on for ages.


Arioch -

can you tell us why you are asking these questions?


What is the proper tool to use to evaluate and understand spiritual/religious claims?
Why does this tool supposedly work better than science?

 

@wynn --

Because both you and LG have asserted on many occasions that science can't be used to evaluate spiritual/religious claims. I have asked why you assert this and what tool we're supposed to use in it's place.

 

Seconded.