Why science and religion are not compatible

[westprog]

I'm afraid I can't agree. It's not a paradigm shift, only a difference of opinion about what methodological naturalism means in an expanded sense. And most of what he wrote wasn't even that -- just his opinion about what science means for typical claims about the natural world from a religious perspective.

It's not a paradigm shift because it is going to be largely ignored. Scientists will carry on with their work, ignoring religion except where it impinges (as with creationists).

If scientists accepted his claims, it would be a paradigm shift.

 

[Limbo]

"Science" relies on the assumption that the subject/object dichotomy is true.

"Religion" relies on the knowledge that the subject/object dichotomy is false.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It's not a paradigm shift because it is going to be largely ignored. Scientists will carry on with their work, ignoring religion except where it impinges (as with creationists).

If scientists accepted his claims, it would be a paradigm shift.

I'm sorry to be snarky, but it's not a paradigm shift because it's silly to suggest that it even could be. Paradigm shifts occur when new data is found that contradicts the prevailing paradigm not because someone suggests a particular philosophical view. He didn't propose a paradigm shift.

 

[Humes fork]

If I hadn't read your other posts I would have assumed this was a joke. So I assume this post is serious, and, thus, I find it impossible to take you seriously.

Yes, I'm serious.

Theology has been around since even before the word was used.

So has astrology.

And philosophy^WP was around long before science was.

Umm, yeah? It's hard to give a definite judgement on philosophy, some of it is good, some of it is garbage.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I meant that science didn't deal with theology and metaphysics, which, as pointed out above, are hardly "highly dubious fields of study." I am using metaphysics^WP, a branch of philosophy, in the following sense:

Theorlogy and metaphysics are highly dubious fields of study, yes. If you inquire into existence without empirical means, you are essentially forced to rely on pure reason. But, more than 400 years after the scientific revolution, that is not a good prescribtion for finding out about the world.

"If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." - David Hume

Basic materialism says there is nothing more than matter. This is an opinion, imposed on science, not a hypothesis proved by science.

But science never proves anything.

And as described in the quote below (from the paper you referenced), it is a presumptuous opinion when it states it can obtain a "complete description of reality."I'll also repeat a sentence from a legal opinion on what science is (see the quote from the Kitzmiller v Dover decision in this post): "While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science." Thus the supernatural is outside the realm of science. Therefore, the question "Is there a God?" is not answered by science, and your answer, "No," which linked to the above article, is incorrect.

That might have a wee bit to do with political pressure. If science found that creationism was correct, do you think all the NOMA lip-service-paying theologians would say "Who cares? Religion is about meaning and morality, and this finding is irrelevant to us."? Of course not. NOMA is used as an excuse because their religious beliefs are so poorly justified at an intellectual level.

That's where theology comes into its own.

Oh really? Why does God exist? Why not multiple gods? What's his plan for my life? Why does he have that plan?

And most importantly, how do you know this?

You didn't respond to my request for evidence for your statement that "you cease to exist" after you die. Did you just forget?

I had it in a previous post, but not my most recent. Again, here it is:

Claims that some form of consciousness persists after our bodies die and decay into their constituent atoms face one huge, insuperable obstacle: the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood, and there’s no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die. If you claim that some form of soul persists beyond death, what particles is that soul made of? What forces are holding it together? How does it interact with ordinary matter?

Everything we know about quantum field theory (QFT) says that there aren’t any sensible answers to these questions. Of course, everything we know about quantum field theory could be wrong. Also, the Moon could be made of green cheese.

He negates everything science has ever learned by claiming that: "Until you have actually examined every single cubic centimeter of the Moon’s interior, you don’t really have experimentally verifiable information, do you?" And you don't find this illogical?

No, he is merely stating that leaving room for believing in an afterlife is like believing that the Moon's interior is made of green cheese.

 

[westprog]

I'm sorry to be snarky, but it's not a paradigm shift because it's silly to suggest that it even could be. Paradigm shifts occur when new data is found that contradicts the prevailing paradigm not because someone suggests a particular philosophical view. He didn't propose a paradigm shift.

It's precisely because there's insufficient data to support his position that the shift won't take place.

Of course, he's quite mealy-mouthed about the implications of his claim. Religion is anti-science - but actually, it's entirely harmless and religious belief has no effect - except that it's in direct conflict.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It's precisely because there's insufficient data to support his position that the shift won't take place.

Of course, he's quite mealy-mouthed about the implications of his claim. Religion is anti-science - but actually, it's entirely harmless and religious belief has no effect - except that it's in direct conflict.

I'm sorry to beat this drum, but no. He is not proposing a paradigm shift. You are the only one suggesting that it amounts to that. It wouldn't be a paradigm shift anyway. It's only a possible extension of methodological naturalism to philosophical naturalism. Both ideas have existed for a long time. The whole idea of a paradigm shift is simply a non-starter from the outset.

 

[FattyCatty]

I have to apologize for how long it's taken me to answer your post. I was almost finished and was happy with my replies. Alas, I hit the wrong button, lost all my responses without realizing it, and then copied your post over my back-up in WordPerfect. Not a good morning.

I'm trying to recreate what I said before. But I'm ticked off and my responses will probably not be as complete as they were originally (and I probably won't be as happy with them ).

I realized this, which is why I included mention of the vague sense. For me, though, I simply don't see much balance or order that can't simply be classified as "arbitrary" or "contrived."

It is arbitrary and contrived: it's my opinion (arbitrary), formed in my mind (contrived). This isn't some universal rule or something meant to apply to anyone else, it's just what I think and feel about a supernatural realm.

I'll agree that science will and can only explain some things, however, I do not see reason to jump to the conclusion that "Why are things the way they are?" (in the sense that you seem to be using it) and "Where did existence come from?" are either necessarily valid, nor that, if they are, that "God" (assuming a Christian God, given how commonly those forms of a deity are often called God) is even likely the answer. Most versions of the Christian God and surrounding theology, for example, seem to have very real conceptual flaws.

I used valid for any question which someone asks (or imagines). I wanted to know the answer, therefore the question was relevant and meaningful (valid, according to Merriam-Webster).

Does "necessarily valid" have a special meaning in philosophy or something? I tried Googling and found lots of uses but no definition.

I don't know about the conceptual flaws of believing in a God that created the universe. I read some convincing arguments for that belief. I can call them convincing because they convinced me to think about what they said; they convinced me that the belief was reasonable; and they helped convince me to explore my own belief.

It's not my permission. It's simply an attempt to keep my position on the matter clear.

I'm sorry, I was being facetious. Hence the smiley.

Given the amount of work it would be for me to answer each of the barrage of questions, with no likely direct reward, and that you could easily just keep asking more? I can't say that I'm bothered enough by your disbelief to motivate me to try to, likely fruitlessly, change your mind, even if I am rather certain that your attempt to assert that these things either have no basis in the physical workings of the brain or simply don't need the physical workings of the brain is, quite simply, false.

I can understand that you don't want to spend time looking stuff up for someone else. I don't mind looking things up, but when I don't have the correct terminology, my time is wasted. Would you be willing to suggest some words or phrases for me to try, or some books I could read about it?

Still, to ask a couple basic questions that I recently asked elsewhere in lieu of links to each of the questions you posed...

1) If one had no neurons, could one still feel or show emotion?

2) Can emotions, actions, responses, etc, be manipulated by means of applied stimulation of the brain?

3) Does loss of large sections of neurons, such as say, the entire frontal lobe, lead to changes in personality or emotions?

4) Can emotions be altered or produced by means of adding chemical substances to the body?

If no to 1 and/or yes to 2, 3, and/or 4, then the safe assumption is that the material aspects very much do play a part.

1. Possibly feel, to some extent; no to show (if it takes neurons to move muscles). When I looked up emotions, I found that they are made up of components, some of which require neurons, some of which require other bodily processes, and some of which may or may not require either.
   
   
2. Altered to some extent; produced I don't know. I actually have some experience with this, as I had ECT in the 1990s. My response was exactly what I answered: It altered my depression to some extent (i.e., the suicidal thoughts/planning were gone, but the depression remained). This quote is about religious experiences, which could be considered a kind of emotion. It's from a Pew Forum lecture, and I thought it was interesting:

   ...But it merely suggests that perhaps people who have vivid or frequent transcendent moments are able to tune into another dimension of reality that many of us ignore. Maybe St. Paul and Joan of Arc weren’t crazy; maybe they just had better antennae.
   
   So that’s one debate about the brain and whether spiritual experience is just something within the brain or something that may transcend the brain....

   
   
3. Personality to some extent; emotions not so much. Phineas Gage^WP may have been able to recover from some of the changes after his accident. didn't suffer very much in the way of changes. In Googling this, I found lots of information on partial loss but didn't find information on total loss of the frontal lobe. Maybe you die if you lose it all?
   
   
4. Altered, yes; produced, yes. Here's more from the Pew Forum lecture:

   So the question is, does that mean that God is just a chemical reaction? I think probably a lot of scientists would say, yes. But Roland Griffiths, who’s the researcher at Johns Hopkins, doesn’t think so, and he doesn’t think so for a couple of reasons. One is that people who have spiritual experiences can do this without help from their chemical friends, right? They can do it through meditation and prayer and chanting and fasting – all of these can spark spiritual experience. Second, he says it’s just as plausible that the chemical reactions and the electrical firings in the brain are reflecting an interaction with God or the spiritual realm.

Unexplained is not the same as unexplainable. Given that the concept of "consciousness" itself didn't seem to be particularly well defined, last I checked, though, I can't say that I'm surprised that misunderstandings occur. That said, I was responding specifically to your postulation that the mind has undetectable aspects that are not based in physical reality. Do you disagree that this postulation is untestable and unverifiable, in the manner that you stated it?

I don't disagree because I wouldn't know how to test it. Maybe someone else would know. And I'll change my question from "unexplained" to "unexplainable."

Not limited, no. More likely? Yes.

I don't think that believing in a God that created the universe counts as "making things up," so I disagree that it's more likely.

That actually suggests willful ignorance, then, given that the supernatural actually is used in that manner. It is not only used in that manner, certainly, but that doesn't negate the statement.

The quote to which I responded was: "The supernatural is some kind of get-out-of-jail-free card that people play when their beliefs turn out to be irrational." (Emphasis mine). He is categorically stating it is a card that people play. I gave an example of a case (mine) where it wasn't no card was played. Therefore, it isn't always used in that manner (sometimes doesn't equal always). And I suspect there are other instances where it isn't used in that manner. So I acquit myself of willful ignorance. And I don't think my beliefs are irrational. Confused, inchoate, derivative probably. But that doesn't make them irrational.

What that does show is that the statement is only addressing one facet of the issue at hand. Granted, it does it in a biased manner. Again, that it is used that way is irrelevant to whether the supernatural or particular aspects of it are either real or not real.

I agree.

Science does have limits. That's completely separate from any beliefs regarding the supernatural or anything else that science does or doesn't deal with.

This has been one of my frustrations with this thread. I've quoted science organizations and scientists, and even an opinion from a judge I thought posters would acknowledge, as the ruling was that ID isn't science (Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District). Yet none of the Avid Atheists^TM has been willing to even qualify their statements contradicting the fact that the supernatural is outside the purview of science.

As for your beliefs being irrational? If you look at it honestly, I strongly suspect that you'll find that they are irrational.

Why should I do that? It's what I've read, leading to what I think, leading to what I believe (at least in an embryonic way).

That said, again, something believed for irrational reasons is not automatically true or false. I can say that I believe in gravity because there's a planet likely made largely of diamond in our galactic neighborhood. Does this automatically make the concept of gravity true or false? Obviously, it doesn't. The same concept applies with supernatural claims.

I believe in a God that created the universe; I think that is a reasonable thing to believe. Your analogy has no reason behind it. So I disagree that the concept is the same.

That said, would you accept the concept of gravity as particularly likely, if the only arguments and evidence for it were on that level of irrelevancy?

The only thing I know about gravity is that it is a force that attracts objects to other objects. So I would read what people say, decide what makes sense to me, and accept those arguments.

First, see if you can present a sound argument why existence couldn't always have existed. Until you can, demanding a "natural" explanation for the existence of existence, as I suspect your actual question to be, is rather presumptuous, on multiple levels.

I'll try, but I've only just started watching the Oxford Critical Reasoning for Beginners lectures. I'll use the definition of "existence" from Merriam-Webster:

2 a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence <the existence of other worlds>

1. If existence is the state of having being and
2. If all instances of existence are both real and bounded by the individuals that had them,
3. Then there must be an individual to have being.
   
   
4. Given that there was a time before there was the individual,
5. The individual could not have existed before he existed.

And why is asking questions presumptuous? Because I don't know the answers already?

That depends on the nature of the "God" that you're proposing and whether you actually mean our universe or existence, itself. The versions desirable to much of Christianity, for example, specifically, the uncreated creator postulations, tend to rest on both questionable assumptions and violate the very assumptions that are used to try to justify the necessity of an uncreated creator, among other problems.

Well, I can see some problems here for myself. I never considered that I was "proposing" God; I thought I was believing in Him as best as I could understand. And I don't know how coherent my beliefs are, as I am still working on understanding them and still reading what smarter people say. I believe there was God, He was all there was and he was all there could be. There was no time or space or matter or anything but God. So there can't be existence yet (because having being implies a place to be and "place" didn't exist).

Then God created everything. And if science is right about the Big Bang starting outside of time and space (like God) as just a singularity that contained all matter and a unified single force, then that is how God set creation into place. Because, like an egg, it contained all the parts and information on how those parts work that was needed to grow into the universe we know. Then God cracked the egg and the singularity expanded. So now there was existence and the universe, because now there was "place" and there could be existence, and what hatched into existence was the universe.

You'll have to forgive me for making God sound like a chicken. All of a sudden I could picture it and I was trying to find a way to say that the initial creation contained everything needed to arrive at where we are right now, and the way an egg turns into a person or a duck or whatever is also an example of containing all the information needed to become something else. I'm trying to figure out what I think and believe in ways that make sense to me, and I'm using this thread as part of that figuring out. And simple ideas that tie into things I'm already familiar with work best for that, at least for now.

There's a gorgeous picture of DNA along the axis, looking like a Rose Window in the Pew Forum lecture I quoted above. I would love to see the DNA of the universe.

Also, "continuing series of coincidences" is language that suggests a fundamental misunderstanding and bias on the matter.

Why? Isn't it pretty wonderful how everything starting from nothing arrived at here and now? Weren't there a lot of things that had to happen just so to get here? Doesn't that equal coincidences?

 

[westprog]

I'm sorry to beat this drum, but no. He is not proposing a paradigm shift. You are the only one suggesting that it amounts to that. It wouldn't be a paradigm shift anyway. It's only a possible extension of methodological naturalism to philosophical naturalism. Both ideas have existed for a long time. The whole idea of a paradigm shift is simply a non-starter from the outset.

Yes, both ideas have existed for a long time - but they are not just different in their content - they are totally different things. Methodlogical naturalism is an approach to doing science. It doesn't involve believing anything. The reason that science adopt methodological naturalism is because the methods of science only work in areas where methodological naturalism is true.

Philosophical naturalism is a philosophy. It's something that one has to believe is true. If science is to adopt a belief system, then that is a major change in essence. It might not appear to be so, because the belief system is carefully crafted to match the working assumptions which science adopts at present.

There's a problem in that the original paper doesn't really propose doing anything. It simply puts forward its view of what science is. The implications of this are left to the reader.

 

[citizenzen]

I don't know about the conceptual flaws of believing in a God that created the universe.

The conceptual flaws are the same ones that convinced you there must be a God, i.e., How did something come out of nothing? Those same questions can be asked of God itself. What existed before God? Where did God come from? Who created Him?

 

[FattyCatty]

The conceptual flaws are the same ones that convinced you there must be a God, i.e., How did something come out of nothing? Those same questions can be asked of God itself. What existed before God? Where did God come from? Who created Him?

I think I understand now. When science says there was a singularity outside time and space that created the universe, it's ok. When I say there was a God outside of time and space that created the universe, that's a conceptual problem. It's very clear now, thank you.

And for both, it works for me that the "outside time and space" makes it possible to believe in something that just was. There was no before because there was no time; there was no "something out of nothing" because there was no space (which I assume includes matter).

 

[citizenzen]

I think I understand now. When science says there was a singularity outside time and space that created the universe, it's ok. When I say there was a God outside of time and space that created the universe, that's a conceptual problem. It's very clear now, thank you.

Actually, it's not "okay" when science says, "there was a singularity outside time and space that created the universe", as I think most fans of science understand that is a theory that explains the Big Bang, but not what caused or preceded it.

We've only just begun to explore and understand the cosmos. I suspect that given enough time, we'll have a pretty good idea what those answers are, but it's too soon to be wedded to any theory yet. And that is the beauty of science ... always willing to cast aside old ideas when evidence proves them to be insufficient in describing the world we live in.

My point wasn't that science had reached an okay conclusion. I don't believe it has. My point is that I can't see how you see conceptual problems with the scientific-based origins of the universe and not likewise see the conceptual problems with God. Both do not do a very good job of explaining how it all began. But I'll put money on the probability that with time, science gets a lot closer to the answer than just settling for "God did it."

 

[Leumas]

I think I understand now. When science says there was a singularity outside time and space that created the universe, it's ok. When I say there was a God outside of time and space that created the universe, that's a conceptual problem. It's very clear now, thank you.

And for both, it works for me that the "outside time and space" makes it possible to believe in something that just was. There was no before because there was no time; there was no "something out of nothing" because there was no space (which I assume includes matter).

Have a look at this post where I think you might find an answer.

 

[Trent Wray]

I think I understand now. When science says there was a singularity outside time and space that created the universe, it's ok. When I say there was a God outside of time and space that created the universe, that's a conceptual problem. It's very clear now, thank you.

And for both, it works for me that the "outside time and space" makes it possible to believe in something that just was. There was no before because there was no time; there was no "something out of nothing" because there was no space (which I assume includes matter).

Ultimately, it still boils down to "faith".

Suppose this singularity manifested as an entity and spoke to you, directly, telling you how the universe began and everything that ever is was, yada yada. You asked this entity to prove that you weren't going crazy by listening to it ... and so it decided to appear in broad daylight in a local shopping mall. Next, it appeared on the news, and repeated it's stories. It even began to perform "miracles", in front of skeptics, believers, whatever. Miracles whose effect could not be refuted. Limbs did in fact grow back. The future was predicted in several ways by this entity, yada yada.

It called itself "god".

How could you still know there were no other gods ? How could you know it was the only one of it's kind ? Would you trust it because of it's power and ability only ? And since we are stuck in causality, how could we trust an entity that appears within our causality, claiming to have existed before it ... if we have nothing else to compare it to ?

It boils down, still, to faith. You have faith to trust the entity or you don't. And that "faith" will be motivated by a variety of factors. For some miracles will be enough. For others they want it more personalized. Others will follow blindly ... etc and so forth. I honestly don't see how the world would be all that much different with "proof". There would definitely be a paradigm shift ... but still. People would eventually continue to ask questions and doubt this and that, which would cause factions, schisms, the usual.

 

[FattyCatty]

Have a look at this post where I think you might find an answer.

How can there be a beginning for the universe? If there is then what was there before? WHERE was there before?

For anything to exist there has to be SOMEWHERE for it to exist. This somewhere is the universe even if there is NOTHING in it. Even if there is absolutely nothing in the universe it is still the universe. No beginning and no end and no limits; infinite in time and space.
If the pursuit is to comprehend how matter started then fine, but the universe did not start with matter. The universe contains matter but matter is NOT the universe. The universe is everything, everywhere and everytime even if there is nothing or no time in it.
Whether there are multiverses or one big hyperverse, it is immaterial. The universe is the container in time and space of ALL "universes" and all time and space….everything that was, is, or will ever be….everything in this dimension or other dimensions…EVERYTHING.
So there cannot be a beginning or an end to the universe (or hyperverse if you prefer) and a quest for the beginning is a PARADOX.

This first part has similarities to what I have said before, only I was describing God, not the universe and I used "outside time and space," while you used "infinite in time and space."

For theists reading this...think of it as your god....you are more than able to fathom no beginning or end or limits to something you call god. The problem is then you attribute intelligence and intent to this thing. So why are you not able to comprehend the same for a lower level of existence. Why can't you envision a no start or end or limit to a THING that does not have any purpose or conscience? If god can exist out of nothing without limits then why cannot the universe which is infinitely less complicated? It is WHERE your god exists.

This is where I start to disagree with you:

• Yes, I can see God with "no beginning or end or limits" except the limit of His own will and choice.
  
• No, I don't see it as a problem that I "attribute intelligence and intent to this thing." And that the intelligence and intent are complete and total and that the concepts of those things are contained within Him.
  
• No, I don't "comprehend the same" for what you yourself call a "lower level existence." Firstly because only God has the preceding characteristics. Secondly, because God doesn't exist, He just is. Until He creates it, there can be no existence.
  
• No, the universe is not where my God exists. God doesn't "exist," He just is. There is no universe that contains Him. He is outside time and space.

For the atheists reading this.... why do we need to have a beginning or end or limits. If the universe is limited in any way then what lies beyond the limits? You can see that this pursuit is a PARADOX and thus meaningless. The only reason we can think of a limited universe is because of our inability to comprehend infinity. We just do not have the mental or linguistic tools to describe or fathom infinity.

Now herein lies a little catch for theists. If a god does exist then s/he/it exists in the universe. That is the hyperverse which contains all dimensions or levels of existence one may care to define. Regardless of what you may contrive or envision… multiverses…multi-dimensions… outside space-time or whatever you may contort….it is CONTAINED WITHIN the hyperverse (extended universe).

Again, God just is, he does not exist. He is everything and everywhere He wants to be; it is God that "contains all dimensions or levels of existence one may care to define." God contained these things until he created them as separate things and gave them existence. He contained existence until He created it outside Himself; He contained the universe until he created it outside himself when he created existence. He contains every other possible universe until He chooses to create them.

So if a god does exist then s/he/it is nothing but a BEING. This god is just another thing in the universe. Therefore s/he/it is not the creator of the universe. Even if s/he/it created the matter from which we exist or manipulated matter to create us….s/he/it is PART of the universe and is not anything more special than the atoms from which we are made. EVEN IF s/he/it is not made out of the same atoms from which we are made s/he/it STILL SHARES SPACE in the universe with the matter from which we are made.

God is not a being. The universe is just another thing that was contained in Him until He created it.

Thus this god becomes no more special in relationship to us than we are in relationship to the bacteria in our lower intestines. You may argue that the bacteria and us are of the same matter and we did not make them. Regardless, even if this god made us from different matter just like we would make an android say, s/he/it is still not anything more than we are when we make an android.

So our special relationship with God is as the creator of everything. He created existence and the universe with all the possibilities inherent there to expand and develop and grow and evolve and have people and who knows what else that we aren't aware of.

These possibilities and processes were all created as part of the universe. There were possibilities because God also chose to create free will. God did not predetermine how everything would happen, not because He couldn't, but because He chose to not do so.

Whichever way you would like to think about it this god is just a being within the universe and thus as far as we are concerned is AN ALIEN.

I've shown above that God isn't a being within the universe. And because God contained everything, contained existence and the universe before He created them, He can't be an alien in the sense of extraterrestrial (from Merriam-Webster, originating, existing, or occurring outside the earth or its atmosphere <extraterrestrial life>) because He is outside time and space and, at the same time, everywhere He wants to be.
.

If anything exists…..it is automatically not outside the universe and the universe contains it….thus it is not a god.

My assertions (above) disagree with your assertion.

So by existing or thinking any “god” becomes just an Alien….. no more worthy of worship than John Frum.

Cogitat ergo in universum est et non deus est.
It thinks therefore it is in the universe and not a god.

See above.

 

[FattyCatty]

Ultimately, it still boils down to "faith".

I agree, and have said so:

...The belief in God(s) is a matter of faith, not fact, and not a matter for science, which examines the natural world....

Suppose this singularity manifested as an entity and spoke to you, directly, telling you how the universe began and everything that ever is was, yada yada. You asked this entity to prove that you weren't going crazy by listening to it ... and so it decided to appear in broad daylight in a local shopping mall. Next, it appeared on the news, and repeated it's stories. It even began to perform "miracles", in front of skeptics, believers, whatever. Miracles whose effect could not be refuted. Limbs did in fact grow back. The future was predicted in several ways by this entity, yada yada.

It called itself "god".

How could you still know there were no other gods ? How could you know it was the only one of it's kind ? Would you trust it because of it's power and ability only ? And since we are stuck in causality, how could we trust an entity that appears within our causality, claiming to have existed before it ... if we have nothing else to compare it to ?

It boils down, still, to faith. You have faith to trust the entity or you don't. And that "faith" will be motivated by a variety of factors. For some miracles will be enough. For others they want it more personalized. Others will follow blindly ... etc and so forth. I honestly don't see how the world would be all that much different with "proof". There would definitely be a paradigm shift ... but still. People would eventually continue to ask questions and doubt this and that, which would cause factions, schisms, the usual.

Yep, it still boils down to faith. And for some people, it is a reasonable faith. And, as you say, even if there were "proof," some people would still disagree or not believe the "proof."

So the only solution to the problem, to avoid the "factions, schisms, the usual," in which I would include spite, malice, hate, killing, ridicule, prejudice, etc., is tolerance. Why should it matter to you what I believe? I'm not asking you to believe the same thing. And it doesn't matter to me what you believe, as long as you respect my right to my own belief.

 

[FattyCatty]

Actually, it's not "okay" when science says, "there was a singularity outside time and space that created the universe", as I think most fans of science understand that is a theory that explains the Big Bang, but not what caused or preceded it.

We've only just begun to explore and understand the cosmos. I suspect that given enough time, we'll have a pretty good idea what those answers are, but it's too soon to be wedded to any theory yet. And that is the beauty of science ... always willing to cast aside old ideas when evidence proves them to be insufficient in describing the world we live in.

My point wasn't that science had reached an okay conclusion. I don't believe it has. My point is that I can't see how you see conceptual problems with the scientific-based origins of the universe and not likewise see the conceptual problems with God. Both do not do a very good job of explaining how it all began. But I'll put money on the probability that with time, science gets a lot closer to the answer than just settling for "God did it."

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have been snarky. I guess a God who created existence, the universe, and the potential for science and us makes more sense to me than pure happenstance and coincidence. I want a reason. God gives me a reason - His will and choice.

 

[citizenzen]

Why should it matter to you what I believe?

I agree. It doesn't matter to me what you believe ... with exceptions ...

One ... if you create laws based on that faith. If you live in a fundamentalist country that has a state sponsored religion, that's one thing. But in a secular country, such as the United States, faith has no place in civil law.

And no, I'm not accusing you of supporting religious-based laws. I'm simply illustrating a boundary where one's faith matters to me.

Two ... if you've voluntarily entered into a debate and based your argument upon your faith, then yes, your belief matters ... but only as far as the argument goes.

 

[Trent Wray]

I agree, and have said so:

Yep, it still boils down to faith. And for some people, it is a reasonable faith. And, as you say, even if there were "proof," some people would still disagree or not believe the "proof."

So the only solution to the problem, to avoid the "factions, schisms, the usual," in which I would include spite, malice, hate, killing, ridicule, prejudice, etc., is tolerance. Why should it matter to you what I believe? I'm not asking you to believe the same thing. And it doesn't matter to me what you believe, as long as you respect my right to my own belief.

And ideally, we should all be able to believe what we want, etc and so forth, and respect each other.

But that's often a luxury we take for granted ... the fact that we can retreat to our private homes, imagination, families, whatever, and do what we want behind closed doors.

It's when we all get together, and have to practically start living together .... that things go awry

Now, it might be true that we can sit at a table, while you say grace to Jehovah and I wait to dig in ... and we can both enjoy the same meal, whatever. But lets say you refuse to get a vaccination for measles for your child ... based on your religious choice ... and they get them, and spread them to my child who is too young to get the vaccine ... and my child dies

Or lets say you come into my hospital, requiring a blood transfusion. But you refuse, based on religious grounds. You die. Your child is left without a parent ... and now it's the responsibility of someone else to raise. Perhaps the government will have to step in and find an adoption home ...

Consequences for our choices, both forseen and unforseen. So whilst tolerance may indeed be a benefit, not caring what another believes is often a luxury ... because what you believe is going to effect others, at some point, in some way. How we solve the problems that arise from that, is another story, that can still involve tolerance perhaps, even though there are still consequences for our beliefs and choices.

And clearly, each of us having our own separate water fountains doesn't work either.

 

[FattyCatty]

I agree. It doesn't matter to me what you believe ... with exceptions ...

One ... if you create laws based on that faith. If you live in a fundamentalist country that has a state sponsored religion, that's one thing. But in a secular country, such as the United States, faith has no place in civil law.

I agee with the exception of laws that protect the rights of people to worship who and how (within the bounds of other laws) they please. Also laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of religious belief (in which I include atheism and agnosticism as they are about belief).

And no, I'm not accusing you of supporting religious-based laws. I'm simply illustrating a boundary where one's faith matters to me.

And I have modified what you said to show where it matters to me.

Two ... if you've voluntarily entered into a debate and based your argument upon your faith, then yes, your belief matters ... but only as far as the argument goes.

I agree; the problem becomes one of disagreement with the rules and boundaries of "the argument."

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I guess a God who created existence, the universe, and the potential for science and us makes more sense to me than pure happenstance and coincidence. I want a reason. God gives me a reason - His will and choice.

That's perfectly fine. It's your belief, your chosen desire. There isn't a way to demonstrate that the universe was intended, however. I think it's best to leave it at faith; no need to argue the point.