I hope a GOD exists but I am not holding my breath!

Sounds like a prescription for damnation.

 

You statistic is moot. God already existed, or He's not. The true possibility of His existence is either 1 or 0, it's nothing in between.

That said, you never came up with how your probability is calculated. You 'very low' comment seems to be a fabricatoin from your own faith and faith only!

 

What roadblock?

That is the strength of science and the weakness of religious belief. Ideas in science and never believed to be absolutely True (capital "T"). Everything is provisionally true. The best explanation for the evidence given, but if science is a game of metaphorical darts, science gets closer to the bullseye over time, not farther away. Religion claims it's hit the bullseye and is proven wrong over and over again. But it's never enough, because there will always be gaps in human knowledge and that's where religion will hide.

Do you have faith, that if I cut off your finger it will hurt?

Is that at all the same as having faith that it will grow back?

Can you see how faith based on experience and evidence (what happens if your finger is cut off) differs from faith based on desires and hopes? The former is justified and the latter is not.

Then you lack imagination. You lack knowledge. You have a desire to know the unknowable (at least at this point). You are not alone in needing that gap in human knowledge filled with an explanation. That's called "god of the gaps". And if some day we do learn how life can start without a god, you or those like you will simply retreat into other gaps.

I don't care if you believe in god, really I don't. The only time it bothers me is when unjustified belief creeps into public discourse and demands a seat at the table without evidence. I'm not saying that religion has not served a role for mankind in the past and that there isn't a role for it in our future, but, imo, religion oversteps its bounds when it tries to impose its ignorance paraded as knowlage.

 

Honestly, I don't know how you could know that any more than AA knows the actual statistical probability of a god/s.

That's like saying if I have a handful of 6 sided dice and I roll them that they will either all come up 6's or they won't and the chances are equal. Now I don't know the probability of the existence of a god/s, but I cast serious doubt on the idea that it's simply a binary chance especially given the lack of evidence and the claims made on behalf of all religions that have been disproven.

 

I would have faith that God would grow it back if He desired, though that would require Him to perform a miracle contrary to the laws set in place. He could do it and He would if it would accomplish His purpose. His greater purpose might be for you to learn from cutting off the finger of another whatever those consequences may be. His greater purpose might be for me to be a testimony to others by my ability to forgive and leave the judgement to God. That is, in my experience the way most often God works. I know from experience (and I've done it) it will eventually hurt pretty bad. I don't need faith there. But I have had faith that God would heal my finger without infection and nerves would regenerate quickly in the damaged area.

Apparently you have faith that there is nothing in the realm of a spiritual existence or life beyond the temporary. and I do accept that. I would propose to you that is why you and I don't agree on much. That doesn't in anyway shape or form diminish your value in my eyes for what it's worth.

 

RE: I hope a GOD exists but I am not holding my breath!
※→ Econ, yabberefugee, et al,

The real question should be → uh → something like → uhmmm → how many years would we have to hold our breath - before the estimation of the Supreme Being (SB) is either proven or disproved? You can approximate under the powers of 10; just as Dr Lawrence Krauss would do.

(COMMENT)

Yes, it's true.... Science is the ultimate "Never Ending Story!" ⇔ This story includes the probability of existence, relevant knowledge, existential reasoning, and the deductive theory of truth. But the question might be: Is Truth the same everywhere?

(COMMENT)

Anything based on "faith" is dubious; no matter what you base your faith. Faith is on a much different plane than science.

Faith has a supernatural component --- while science is composed of tangible evidence.

(COMMENT)

Faith is dependent on the "theological perspective" which differs in substance from "scientific knowledge;" and is some sort of undefined form and conclusion of the existence of the SB.

However, no matter which theology is used, the value is nominally zero (void).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Respect greatly appreciated here! Scientific Knowledge that I have seen is always subject to change. It requires a degree of faith to except it's every conclusion.....my only point.

 

With respect, none of this addresses the questions I asked.

One statement is made on real objective experience and the other is not.

Having faith that god might perform a miracle is not the same is having faith in testable, repeatable experience.

You really like misquoting me or putting words in my mouth. Don't you?

I never said there wasn't anything in the realm of spiritual existence. I never ever said that.

What I said, there is no verifiable evidence of such a thing (not the same as saying I know it doesn't exist). Therefore I don't make moral decisions based on that which cannot be shown to be true. If you can do the right thing on faith, you can do the wrong thing based on that same faith, because contrary to your claim, faith isn't grounded to anything except more faith.

 

Again, you are trying to conflate scientific "faith" (though honestly, I wouldn't ever use the term "faith" in this context) with religious "faith" in order to make them sound equivalent. They are not and I called you on it.

If I have faith that the plane I'm about to step on will land safely, that's grounded in the very real fact that 10's of millions of flights take off every year and land safely. That's faith based on evidence and it's different than most kinds of religious faith.

 

RE: I hope a GOD exists but I am not holding my breath!
※→ Econ, yabberefugee, et al,

Yes, our friend "Econ" is correct.

(COMMENT)

The many Faith Based systems of Belief - are very different from the - Belief in the one Scientific Process. The two should not be confused.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

When I was in high school, science told us we were headed for an ice age. I remember learning science telling us eggs were bad for us. Science told me I had a busted bursar sac that would never heal. It needed surgery. Before entering the 20th century, scientists warned we would be inundated with animal waste. These are many scientific claims that the yuppies eagerly accept that have been proven to be untrue. I have no qualms against honest scientific process. It is much like statistics. My father taught me early on ....figures don't lie but liars figure.

 

RE: I hope a GOD exists but I am not holding my breath!
※→ yabberefugee, et al,

Science evolves as we learn more and more.

Most Faith Based Systems have stopped learning and are not evolving in their belief system.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Yabber, with all due respect, you have confused the media with science.

You may have been told that in high school we were headed for an ice age, but that wasn't based on any scientific consensus. Don't believe me? Look it up. Between 1965 and 1979 there was 68 peer-reviewed papers written by actual climate scientists. Of those, here are the statistics:


Of those that predicted cooling, they acknowledged that the cooling trend would be short and that CO2 would rapidly overpower the cooling effects of aerosols (pollution).

Moving on....

Eggs...

Eggs have always been a bit of a mystery and though I'm not going to spend a lot of time debunking eggs are good/ eggs are bad, what I do know is that media loves to report "studies" that make certain claims. One of my favorites is that smelling your own flatulence (or that of others) helps prevent cancer. I'm not going to get into the raw stupidity of this story, but rest assured that no scientist made this claim. See, In the days of "big data" (that's my field), all one has to is mine mountains of data looking for statistically significant trends on a computer. If 12 people that whistled "Dixie" every night before bed had a greater prevalence of having red hair, then one might conclude that red hair makes you whistle "Dixie". But studies aren't experiments, they are untested statistically significant outliers. The problem is, they often have incredibly small sample sizes, but the media loves picking up on this rubbish. It's one thing to report it as it really happens:

"The scientists are delivering "very small amounts" of AP39 (hydrogen sulfide gas) directly into mitochondrial cells to repair damage, which "could hold the key to future therapies," the university's statement reveals."

And then turn that into a flashy clickbait headline:

"Could sniffing flatulence be GOOD for you? Potent gas can help prevent cancer, strokes and heart attacks, claim scientists" (actual headline in the Daily Mail)

See what happened there?

This is what happens when,

1) Science education sucks

2) What we perceive is influenced by what we already believe.

Next....

You said "Science told me I had a busted bursar sac that would never heal."

I wasn't there and I don't like calling people liars, so I'll just ask, what you are calling "scientists" were doctors? Just a guess on my part. Unless you knee was the subject of a peer reviewed study, I'm just not sure how you make that claim.

Next:

Animal waste.....I couldn't even find a claim like this when I Googled it. So I'll throw one in for you (though I'm not going to look it up, this is all from memory, feel free to Google it if you think I've left out something importnat)

I'm going to guess and I are probably close to the same age (based on things you've said, just a hunch, I grew up in the 1970's), you probably remember the Mobro4000, a trash barge that traveled up and down the east coast in the 1980's looking for somewhere to dump several tons of New Jersy's garbage. Someone had the great idea that they would get paid by New Jersy to take garbage and they would ship it to NC (again, if memory serves) and pay top have to disposed of for less...What could go wrong!!

It was the poster child for eco-nuts everwhere. The fire was fueled by (if memory serves) by someone in the EPA (?) saying that we were running out of landfill space.

The media was happy to indulge the story and people remember how "science" said we were running out of landfill space and that by the year 2000 we'd all be knee deep in garbage. Again, not science, media and uniquely unqualified people with a political agenda.

And the list of claims like this, blamed on "science" go on and on.....

To my knowledge, none of these stories you've cited are based on real, peer reviewed science, any that are (like the global cooling thing) isn't based on the overwhelming consensus .....


-Cheers

 

Thank you econ. That was good. I do understand that true science has value. How it is interpreted when answers are not complete is another thing.
Contemporary philosophies too often come into the picture. I will confess my own bias in four words......".In the beginning God....... "a Bible teacher one told me, how we grow in our faith is "line upon line, precept upon precept".Often I find science only validates my faith.

A recent visit to the Creation Museum outside of Cincinnati highlites how science is used to interpret the two different ideologies. That first precept is all important as to which way we go. They present the two rather well. (in the beginning God) or (in the beginning random chance)
Guess my method of thinking involves the question" why am I here"? I love history and reliving the past through my ancestors. The Bible fulfills a good deal of that passion because it reveals human nature and "how we often deceive ourselves.

A surgeon most generally says an operation is in order. A chiropractor says no, we must manipulate, a nutritionist often will disagree and say it is what we eat. Often these methods are viewed as exclusive to each other, but I see that in reality that one must consider all to arrive at the Truth. That having been said, I see the Genesis of how and why we began is of utmost importance in how we interpret science and pretty much everything else. That is where "faith" comes in. In the beginning God....or in the beginning random chance, Two very different paths.

I do understand there are those to whom "science is their passion". They definitely have a great purpose. I give them kudos. It is the biased interpretations for which I have great mistrust. If you were to go to the Creation Museum, I believe you might find it interesting the way it is presented. 1st Science is presented, then Man says this about it, then God's Word says this about it. Two very different paths. I'm not saying the Truth is to be found at the "Creation Museum". In the realm of science, (which I confess I rely a great deal on others, even yourself) it seems to gel with my foundational precept.

 

If you can believe something that leads to good based on faith, you can believe in something that leads to bad things in the name of faith.

I submit you have your own value system already. You don't get it from god, you already had it.

If god were proven beyond the shadow of any doubt to be a concept created entirely within our minds. An area of the brain you could literally turn on or off......Upon learning this, are you telling me that suddenly at that instant that you would no longer value the life of your child? That you would believe it's ok to steal or rape? This is where I get frustrated. You are the source of your values, not god. You don't give yourself enough credit.

Now I'm not saying that your god doesn't exist. I wouldn't claim to know, what I do know is that you experience life very similarly to the way I do. There are things you like and there are things you dislike. Then there are things that you like, but you know the consequences of acting on those "likes" might create discord, result in people that don't like you or don't trust you. It might even lead to others harming you or worse. So you refrain from doing some of the things you might like because of the consequences it might have on you or those you care about.

Everything you do is related to your experience and the values you hold as a result.

In another response you said that god had a "nature" that was good. I'm going to address that after this post.

Your bias affects your ability to be objective. There is no "random chance". There is probability, but that's not the same.

A magnet is attracted to certain metals and not others if a magnet sticks to iron is that random? If carbon atom creates a chemical bond with another atom, is that "random"? If a gold atom refuses to make chemical bonds with other atoms, is that "random"? If a chain of atoms forms, is that "random"?

First, you have to decide to value whatever it is that the Surgeon, Chiropractor, and nutritionist is trying to accomplish. From there are objectively right and wrong answers to the claims they are making. Perhaps there is more than one right answer to the question, but again, nothing is "right or wrong" until you define what it is that you want to accomplish.

You mean like I should consider creationism with equal weight to evolution? Should I consider astrology, voodoo, mysticism, and black magic too?

No, I evaluate the evidence and dismiss things that are wrong and I put to the side things that cannot be proven right or wrong. If new information comes along later that can prove or disprove we need to re-evaluate.

The problem with humans is they are terribly biased, they have a habit of hanging on to information based on belief and not evidence, this even happens in science itself. We know that, but the system is such that these flaws are ALWAYS flushed out. Religion has rarely added to knowledge and almost exclusively served to slow it's progress.

That's just it my friend. We don't "interpret" science. There is no Christian and atheist science just like there is not Muslim and Christian math.

There are ideas that lack evidence, like dark matter or dark energy. We detect it through other changes, like looking out a window, we can't see air, but we can see it's effect on trees.

Science "interprets" these observations, but it does so with a giant asterisk.

The problem is, when we see science represented on TV, we rarely hear someone say, "this phenomenon is best explained by ....[insert idea here].

To often science is represented as the end of knowledge rather than the beginning. If there is a problem in science, imo, it can be a lack of humility.

I've seen these museums.

For example, they show trees buried almost instantly in mud (evidence for a flood), or boots that are "petrified" (supporting the idea that things can petrify in a few thousand years) or make claims about blood cells found in dinosaur bones.

All debunked. They all prey on people's intuition. It fosters ignorance and it shows how religions slow learning, not advance it.

You can choose to put on your (as Ken Hamm Says) "biblical glasses", but really all your doing is constraining yourself in willful ignorance because it comports with ideas you want to be true.

I don't mean to be harsh, but when someone asks me "why do you care if so-and-so believes in [insert biblical claim here]?

Because that some kind of thinking leads people to put faith in god, rather than medicine or other technologies and has often lead to suffering and death as a result.

You might say that they interpreted something wrong and if they only interpreted things the way you have they would have figured it all out. But that's just it. If you can take something that leads to a positive outcome on faith you have no grounds to condem others who do the same, even if it leads to a negitive outcome.

 

I had family that think much as you do. When my brother-in-law lay dying at 34 years old, I would rub his back. He told me, "so this is how cancer gets you". I told him I'd see him again. Why did they always ask me to pray? Why is it unbelieving family members always want me to pray when things go south? They never ask me to scientifically explain how their bodies will decompose into some organic and mineral compound. Perhaps someday you'll be brought to that point. Maybe someone with faith will be able to encourage you and give you hope. I really doubt if you'll be asking a scientist.

 

Apologies, I've been very busy. Took me a while to get back to you.

I am very sorry to hear about your brother-in-law, 34 years old is MUCH too young. That's very sad.

This is known as "there are no atheists in foxholes" fallacy. The idea that when people are about to die, they suddenly believe in god. Even if that were true, what people believe has no affect on the universe. If everyone thought the moon was made of blue cheese that wouldn't affect what the moon was made of. For me, I suspect that when I die I'll go right back to the state I was in for the billions of years before my birth. I think the concept of life after death is for the living, not for the dead. It's a way for people that are still here to cope with their loss. It is a pleasant fiction and not one I care to take from anyone that needs it.

For me, I lost both of my parents before I was 40, it didn't change my outlook on god or life after death. I didn't pray for them or plead with god to save them. I don't need to believe they are in "a better place". This makes the life they had all that much more precious to me. I must make the most of the life I have, here, now, because I don't believe there will be a second chance.

 

If what I believe is to be true, then I am in a much better place. If I convince others, they too will unite once again with their loved ones and most importantly, the One who gave them this experience we call life. If I am wrong.....well, I faced life's obstacles with a degree of hope that enhaced my performance and charity toward others.....no harm done.
With that in mind, why do you think there are several on this forum, maybe yourself included, that spend much time trying to put doubt in the minds of those that have hope? That even viciously attack us, calling our faith a "fairy tale" , and implying we are mentally disturbed, or degrading us in anyway possible?

My own answer would be that there is a force that wants us to deny us that intrinsic value for which we were created. It works to create doubt about our value and the purpose for which we were made. At it's extreme, it actually puts monstrous thoughts in peoples minds who do incredibly evil things. Things almost unimaginable, Then end results are the same. Destruction here and now and in the afterlife to come.

As you speak of the old adage, "there are no atheists in foxholes", I do agree there are many whose hearts are so hardened they can ever see beyond themselves or this life. For them they adhere to the old adage "eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die".My point is, that too requires a deal of faith that is not proven.

My reasoning has been explained much better by others who put forth the effort in books. One of the most simple yet complex books of reasoning would be C.S. Lewis's book "Mere Christianity". The book was written from a compilation of radio broadcasts in WWII England. It was an effort to give hope to the many British fighter pilots that were taking to the skies, facing a very good chance of death in the defense of their nation. It is simple logic and reasoning. Then again, I realize, it is not an eyeopener for all.[/QUOTE]

 

Still, science has brought inventions that vastly enhance life through medical advances and technology. Praying to a god does not put men on the moon or remove ruptured gall bladders.

 

Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, you'd be surprised at how much prayer is involved in each of those efforts. Not trying to anger you further.....

 

There is no way to measure if prayer helps, other than as a placebo. Studies show it is irrelevant, but I'm not disputing that it helps the believer mentally.

 

Doubt certainly helps no one.

 

As a former Christian I catch myself wanting to thank or pray to a god concerning issues. While I'm fully convinced that the claims of existing gods are man made I haven't fully given up on an unknown higher being, yet, due to evidence of the world around, I can't accept that it is anything more than indifferent to our existence. Considering the horific plight of so many others I feel guilty even asking for divine intervention. I don't begrudge others doing so, it's just the way I roll.

 

That is the way for so many who take their eyes off of God. You know how Peter walked on water for a while, then taking his eyes off of Jesus, he began to sink, yet he cried out and Jesus helped him. What a powerful illustration. My own father accompanied my family to church once. We had a great time of worship. During that time, he commented to my mother she needed to watch the expressions of the worshippers because they appeared so phony. It has never occurred for me to do that.
So you seem to feel you have better ideas as to how Creation should be run? First off, do you have the ability to create something out of nothing? Secondly, do you think you could create man in your own image yet give him complete sovereignty over his desires all the while desiring that he returns your love? I don't think you would. It exposes you to too much heartbreak. I can't personally understand how God does it....but I know He does. And He paid a terrible price to overcome my nature yet preserving His principles to do so. That is why I remain a Christian. His ways are higher than mine.

 

I'm going to have to disagree. I see no evidence of this god or any reason we need him to be here. When a couple procreate they create children in their image and eventually they are on their own. It's just life as we know it.

I also don't accept that he needed to or payed a terrible price. Especially considering what most Christians consider my fate. One day of crusifixion does not pay for eternal torment. It just isn't logical.