Do you believe in God ?

[Kulindahr]

electricity can be detected. Air can be detected.
Ghosts or god cannot !!

Devices three hundred years ago couldn't detect electrical current, but electrical current was real.
Now they can
Devices two hundred years ago couldn't detect radio waves, but radio waves were real.
Now they can
Devices one hundred years ago couldn't detect gravity waves, but gravity waves were real.
Now they can
Devices twenty years ago couldn't detect the Higgs boson, but the Higgs boson was real.
Now they can

Thousands of years of ghosts or god, but cannot be detected !!!

They can be detected NOW.

That something may not be detectable by instruments is not evidence against that thing.

 

[TX-Beau]

They can be detected NOW.

That something may not be detectable by instruments is not evidence against that thing.

This is just the same old crappy religious argument. Things like gravity may not have been quantifiable in the past, but the effect has ALWAYS BEEN THERE EXPERIENCED BY EVERYONE, no matter which fanciful mythology one has chosen to believe. Then "science" came along and gave us useful tools to understand it.

Let's try this again, absence of evidence IS NOT evidence of supernatural, of which there has never been any kind of evidence or natural phenomena for all to wonder at.

If you want religion to play in this ballpark, show us, where is god - and we'll see if your religion is describing him/her/it properly, or if the thousands of other people's gods that preclude the existence of yours are more accurate.

 

[Kulindahr]

electricity can be detected. Air can be detected.
Ghosts or god cannot !!

This is just the same old crappy religious argument. Things like gravity may not have been quantifiable in the past, but the effect has ALWAYS BEEN THERE EXPERIENCED BY EVERYONE, no matter which fanciful mythology one has chosen to believe. Then "science" came along and gave us useful tools to understand it.

Let's try this again, absence of evidence IS NOT evidence of supernatural, of which there has never been any kind of evidence or natural phenomena for all to wonder at.

If you want religion to play in this ballpark, show us, where is god - and we'll see if your religion is describing him/her/it properly, or if the thousands of other people's gods that preclude the existence of yours are more accurate.

You are determined to change the subject, aren't you?

He was talking about devices being able to detect things. The only item on my list that even barely comes within the range of your claim is electrical current -- and that fails because no one experienced electrical current until humans learned how to moderate electrical generation; up till then it was all lightning.

No one ever experienced radio waves, or gravity waves, or the Higgs boson. No one experiences neutrinos, either.

Five hundred years ago if someone had mentioned those things you would have been asserting they were superstition.

 

[TX-Beau]

You are determined to change the subject, aren't you?

He was talking about devices being able to detect things. The only item on my list that even barely comes within the range of your claim is electrical current -- and that fails because no one experienced electrical current until humans learned how to moderate electrical generation; up till then it was all lightning.

No one ever experienced radio waves, or gravity waves, or the Higgs boson. No one experiences neutrinos, either.

Five hundred years ago if someone had mentioned those things you would have been asserting they were superstition.

Run as far as you want, the reality is that this is a point you won't acknowledge, and never have in all the years I've been arguing with you on this subject. PANTS ON FIRE! Everyone has "experienced" gravity since the dawn of time. You know that as well as I do and if you are trying to pretend otherwise that just dishonest.

 

[Telstra]

They can be detected NOW.

That something may not be detectable by instruments is not evidence against that thing.

The god of the gap argument (rolled eyes)

 

[newspaper_love]

as an ex scientist, i look at the world and see it perfect. if you look at urine, citric acid creates crystals with perfect angles etc ... so do i believe there is a god. No . Nature has tried over and over again, so not to believe in god means you believe in the multiverse.

 

[LoveMyPeppermill]

"Any 'god' small enough to fit neatly in my brain and thought process would be far too small to be the being we are seeking."

-- Glenn, an Atlantic reader quoted in Conor Friedersdorf's "Up for Debate" email newsletter about readers' relationships with organized religion

 

[cityboy-stl]

Evidence?

Do not claim second or third hand coincidence is equal to first-hand evidence. Correlation does not imply causation.

 

[MusicMan321]

I believe in God and after you die you'll see everyone that has passed away up in heaven

 

[TX-Beau]

I believe in God and after you die you'll see everyone that has passed away up in heaven

Or you'll never know because you died and there was no afterlife.

The saddest part of Christian theology is telling people to sacrifice now for promises of death.

Live now.

The world is wondrous enough as itself, there is no need to embellish it.

 

[Rickrock]

I believe in an afterlife because there have been so many eyewitnesses, both in current times and throughout history. I don't know what that afterlife is like. If there is an afterlife there must be a God. I don't know what God is like either.

 

[TX-Beau]

I believe in an afterlife because there have been so many eyewitnesses, both in current times and throughout history. I don't know what that afterlife is like. If there is an afterlife there must be a God. I don't know what God is like either.

This kind of statement is problematic because I suspect that the way you are using "witness" is not going to be the same way a non-religious person would. An assertion is not a witness unless you are saying "Witness" as Evangelicals do, for example, "Witness of Christ." They believe Christ is Lord because they feel their faith. That is a spiritual usage that's dissonant for someone who doesn't operate with that faith-inspired definition.

For the non-religious a witness requires corroboration. A thousand assertions are also not corroboration. Lots of people can firmly believe in erroneous things at onece. There must be something more.

 

[Araucaria]

I believe in an afterlife because there have been so many eyewitnesses, both in current times and throughout history. I don't know what that afterlife is like. If there is an afterlife there must be a God. I don't know what God is like either.

I believe you are alluding to Near Death Experiences (NDEs). Dr. Raymond Moody and others have investigated phenomena reported by people who were near clinical death. They described being enveloped by feelings of love, going through tunnels, meeting beings of light, meeting dead relatives, having life reviews, and so on. Many go on to live happier lives, feeling that they have a purpose. Dr. Moody has demonstrated NDEs to be a fairly common phenomenon.

But that is about as far as things go when talking about "proof." Those who experience NDEs are absolutely certain their experiences were real, and that they had a foretaste of the afterlife. Skeptics, however, point out that these accounts are not proof of anything. Certainly no ways have been devised that can independently verify what is described by NDE accounts. What we are then left with aa individuals, is whether we agree that people who describe NDEs are telling us something that is real (I hope that they do indeed point to an afterlife).

Investigators of NDEs point to accounts in which the person can describe what was happening in the ER, what steps the medical staff used to revive them, and even what relatives and friends were in the waiting room at the time. Mind you, this is what happened when they were "out," and showed no signs of consciousness, and presumably were incapable of being aware of anything. But NDEs will almost certainly never be universally accepted by the scientific community. The skeptics want proof. Even if ir could somehow be known where the person's point of consciousness was, the skeptics would want some clear demonstration that something different was occurring. They would want to see things such as a change in the density of the air, a change in absorption or deflection of light, disturbances in the electromagnetic field, etc. And I don't think any of that will ever be found.

If you accept that NDE accounts are real, what does that say about the existence of God? That would certainly open the door to there being something much bigger and more elaborate than we can ever imagine. I almost think if you talk about the existence of God, you have to define what you mean by the term "God," since people have so many different views and concepts of what God is and is not. I don't think of God as a man that sits on a throne somewhere, giving orders and watching everything everybody is doing. I'm thinking more in terms of the "soul" of the Universe, a sort of all-knowing collective of all beings and all things (yet some people can feel a remarkable personal quality about this). To me, the NDE accounts seem consistent with that view.

 

[TX-Beau]

Nomenclature is a huge issue in the discussion of religion. What is death? If a Persons's heart stops there is a short period where we can revive the person and he'll live. Was he dead? A person's cognitive function can be irretrievably lost by damage to the brain and it won't ever be coming back, but the basic mechanism of keeping his body functioning can be unimpaired. There will never be any more volition or thought or consciousness. Is that person alive?

Terms have to be defined in a common usage or the conversation goes nowhere.

 

[Rickrock]

My reference was of a few different kinds of witnesses. I have relatives who have seen or communicated with dead people. There have been reports of Near Death Experiences. There are also numerous stories of haunted houses where people have had experiences with the dead throughout history. There are even reports in the Bible of dead people appearing. Even if some of the sources I have listed could be explained away, there are too many to dismiss all of them. No, I don't believe all of these people were lying.

 

[TX-Beau]

My reference was of a few different kinds of witnesses. I have relatives who have seen or communicated with dead people. There have been reports of Near Death Experiences. There are also numerous stories of haunted houses where people have had experiences with the dead throughout history. There are even reports in the Bible of dead people appearing. Even if some of the sources I have listed could be explained away, there are too many to dismiss all of them. No, I don't believe all of these people were lying.

OK, the problem with the math you're using is that it's not comprehensive. You say they are "numerous," and "too many" to be explained away. If you took all the "witnesses" and divided them by the number of all people who have existed, what would your percentage look like? Are they still numerous?

How many people will say that they are witnesses of witches? Or Bigfoot? Santa Claus? Faith healing? Drinking poison in religious fervor and surviving? Are any of those actually going to be "numerous" when the totality of humanity is considered?

A first-hand account is not a witness, it's an assertion. You can't be a witness for yourself. If there was a pie, and you said you ate the pie, but there it was, plain as day. You are not a witness to eating the pie. If the pie is gone, your claim is better, but it's still suspicious without some other corroboration you ate the pie. Even if someone else (a witness) says you ate the pie, that still isn't incontrovertible proof, unless you can then prove that no one else could possibly have eaten the pie. You may congregate with a bunch of people who are certain you ate the pie - but didn't see it either - but OBVIOUSLY, someone ate the pie, there are so many people saying so, it must be YOU, but that isn't proof either.

In every culture, "numerous" people have similar religious experiences that are categorically impossible as defined by "numerous" people in other religions, they are mutually exclusive by doctrine. If you are a devout Christian, the religious experience felt by Hindus is obviously false. It can't be real. The "numerous people in Christianity prove it is so.

The commonality is that some people have "religious" experiences and a lot just don't, not the specifics of what anyone claims is real.

This brings us full circle to definitions and nomenclature. How are you defining real?

 

[Rickrock]

I also believe that God likes to use others to do his work. God is more likely to send a rescue team to rescue you than he is to bodily lift you out of danger. I view creation and evolution as the same story from different viewpoints. The Bible says that God said let there be light and science says there was the big bang theory which would have produced light. God continued his creation and made fishes in the sea, then birds in the air and then animals on the land. I believe that scientists now say that in evolution fish came first and then birds and then animals on land in the same order. Science seems to be saying God used evolution in his creation and is proving that the Bible is correct and the Bible is proving that science is moving in the right direction.

Erich Von Daniken and Paul Von Ward have said that people from outer space have visited Earth throughout history and they were advanced creatures and were sometimes called angels, so there is no God because there were no angels. I think that it is possible and it doesn't matter what you call them because they were the same thing and they could be God's angels. I am in the process of slowly reading "Slave Species of the Gods" by Michael Tellinger where he says that creatures from outer space created man to work as his slaves on earth. I am somewhat skeptical of all that he says although he does bring up some interesting points.

I tend to be a traditional person who tries to look at traditional stories through modern eyes. How would Renaissance furniture makers design a TV cabinet? How would primitive people describe a helicopter or a space ship? I wonder if the Greek gods and the Norse gods with their battles are the same story as each other and the same story as the fight between the Archangel Michael and Lucifer in the Christian Bible?

Yes, I believe in life after death and some of these stories may expand our understanding of the traditional stories, but I don't think that science is fully up to explaining them at this time.

 

[Rickrock]

Before people could write they passed on stories and knowledge verbally. I believe that many of the old stories have some kernel of truth to them although it may have changed some or we may not understand what they were saying or they may not have had the knowledge to explain it as we would explain it and understand it today.

 

[ShadowCat]

Well hopefully if any afterlife what we are living in right now is HELL! This way everything else is gravy!

 

[Araucaria]

I also believe that God likes to use others to do his work. God is more likely to send a rescue team to rescue you than he is to bodily lift you out of danger. I view creation and evolution as the same story from different viewpoints. The Bible says that God said let there be light and science says there was the big bang theory which would have produced light. God continued his creation and made fishes in the sea, then birds in the air and then animals on the land. I believe that scientists now say that in evolution fish came first and then birds and then animals on land in the same order. Science seems to be saying God used evolution in his creation and is proving that the Bible is correct and the Bible is proving that science is moving in the right direction.

Erich Von Daniken and Paul Von Ward have said that people from outer space have visited Earth throughout history and they were advanced creatures and were sometimes called angels, so there is no God because there were no angels. I think that it is possible and it doesn't matter what you call them because they were the same thing and they could be God's angels. I am in the process of slowly reading "Slave Species of the Gods" by Michael Tellinger where he says that creatures from outer space created man to work as his slaves on earth. I am somewhat skeptical of all that he says although he does bring up some interesting points.

I tend to be a traditional person who tries to look at traditional stories through modern eyes. How would Renaissance furniture makers design a TV cabinet? How would primitive people describe a helicopter or a space ship? I wonder if the Greek gods and the Norse gods with their battles are the same story as each other and the same story as the fight between the Archangel Michael and Lucifer in the Christian Bible?

Yes, I believe in life after death and some of these stories may expand our understanding of the traditional stories, but I don't think that science is fully up to explaining them at this time.

I believe that all fields of human knowledge and mental endeavors can be divided into two categories. In one category falls what I'd call Science: The sciences, logic, and reason. I'd call the other category the Arts: Creative and visual arts, music, drama, and religion. Science is good at answering what and how, and religion is better at answering why. Interestingly enough, our brains are wired so that different parts handle different functions. The left hemisphere handles science, logic, and reason, while the right hemisphere is pattern oriented, handling matters of our place in the world. Thus, religion has its place in orienting us to this experience we call life. And by the way, I think modern religion got fucked up because people have injected left-brain thinking into what is rightfully a right-brain endeavor. Scripture is read like a law book, people think in terms of my religion is right, so yours must be wrong, etc.

In terms of our origins, science has answered the what and how quite well: the Big Bang, the evolution of life from its beginnings all the way to human beings, etc., but it doesn't answer the question of why. Like modern humans, the ancients wondered these things, and they constructed stories and myths to why things were the way they were, and where they fit in them. Some of those stories became incorporated into religious texts and the holy scriptures of various religions. And maybe some of those stories and myths don't fit well with modern understandings. Perhaps we need to create our own myths.

Carl Jung talked about archetypes, or themes that appear over and over across different societies and cultures. Essentially these are things that are meaningful to all human beings as individuals, and the human race as a collective. The specific stories and symbols may be different in different cultures, but essentially they all boil down to trying to get at the same things. Thus, traditional stories can be looked at in terms of what universals they were trying to get at. Interestingly enough, in his later years Jung himself had a near-death experience, in which he saw the ball of earth from a great distance in space.

As far as extraterrestrials visiting earth, I personally believe that happens, but I think they try to avoid interfering or calling attention to themselves (the Prime Directive?). I'm not sure about creating a slave race. Rather, if anything like that is going on, I could see it in terms of an ongoing experiment, where extraterrestrials planted the seed of life, and watched as it evolved. Conceivably they may have interfered at certain points. For example, they may have introduced genetic material to cause a rather sudden jump from apes to humans. Of course, this is all conjecture.