Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I suppose there are billions of living witnesses/testifiers that God exists.
Incorrect....There may be billions that think, or believe god exists, but personal beliefs are not admissible in court.
Quote:
Actually, the Bible is so accepted in American courts of law that most if not all witnesses are required to touch it as they swear an oath to tell the truth. The contents of the books of the Bible, as we all know, are debatable.
Now you are just treading water...Meaningless..It's not evidence.
Quote:
Dreams and actual spiritual experiences are two quite different things as those who have experienced both can attest. (Though a particularly vivid dream can contain a message from God.)
Vivid dreams can be anything, but they are not messages, and certainly not evidence of god, or a creator. I have had hallucinations while awake....(from going too long without sleep) Nothing spiritual there, but I can understand why some would think so.
Thank-you for explaining your position and why you believe as you do.
I'm wondering why you are throwing away personal experiences as a method of discovery. Isn't every discovery known to science a matter of someone having a personal experience of some sort with something?
The existence of God is NOT a matter for science, never was, except possibly in the evolving field of astrophysics. Time after time if you can believe the reports of atheists, science has failed to detect God or even spiritual things. It's just not equipped for such a quest. Reasonable people turn to religion to learn more about God and His ways.
If science had already detected everything there is to know I might agree with you that "it illogical to believe in claims which are undetectable by empirical means." But then there'd be no further need for science or scientists...
Many people who have a firm testimony that God lives do not base that on "feelings" though that could play a part in it. They base their belief in God on actual experiences. To me there's a big difference. In your attempt to validate your godless position, you fail in my opinion to give enough credit to billions of intelligent people over the ages. And don't come back with the numbers card. It seems reasonable, though not absolute, that if a billion intelligent people say they believe God exists because of personal experiences with Him, and a few thousand say He does not exist because their manufactured tools have failed to detect Him, I'd give those billions more credit than atheists commonly do on discussion boards.
Seems the logical thing to do in my opinion...
Is history science? Isn't almost everything we learn, especially about science discoveries "based on somebody's say so"? Unless you were one of the few people involved with the experiment, you are demonstrating faith that they and their peers actually got it right, had reliable tools, and reached valid conclusions; that the person/s reporting the discovery did it accurately, that it was translated correctly if need be, published accurately, and that you interpreted the report correctly. Seems a bit like exploring the er Bible...
Science is ever changing, each discovery subject to the next discovery. With a history of centuries of change and I suppose thousands of theories being debunked, I don't think that I could ever bring myself to have enough faith in such a system as to risk my eternal well-being on it, even if I wasn't positive that there is life after death. (Which I am.)
But I don't think that Religion has ever thrown away God, however He may be culturally labelled, or whatever attributes may be assigned to Him. As for me, I'll put my trust in God rather than constantly changing so often wrong man.
I think that personal experiences are more subjective rather than something objective. I consider experiences to hold valuable truth to the individual who experiences them, although when considering claims that hold objective truth, I think that experiences don't hold weight of truth. Experiences also tend to be interpreted by the individual, which seems to me to make it more biased. On the otherhand, results found in scientific testing can be replicated by someone else to see if x claim is true/false. For example, if I did a test on the color of crows and my results made me conclude that 'all crows are black,' you could then do the same test. If you got the same results that I did then you would most likely conclude that 'all crows are black.' If you did the same test, but then found several exceptions. For example if eighty crows were tested and seventy six were black, but four were grey then you would have disproven my conclusion. The conclusion would then have to be 'most crows are black.' In terms of experiential vs empirical evidence, experiental data is untestable whereas empirical data can be replicated by others and independently verified.
This seems to remind me of Sagan's example of the invisible dragon in the garage. If someone says that there is a dragon in their garage and you ask them to prove it. They take you back to their garage to show you, but there is nothing there. The person says it's invisible. If hundreds, thousands etc. people start giving testimonials this may give more credibility to the claim, but it doesn't objectively prove that there is an invisible dragon in the garage. If this were a widely held belief, you would probably reject it since there's no empirical evidence which proves it to be true. Majority belief/experience doesn't necessarily equal more truth though. For example, in medievil Europe the majority of people believed in witches and dark magic. They also said that they had experienced these things. Most people now find these beliefs to be fallacious. This is because it isn't supported by empirically verified evidence. Likewise, many people give testimonials of experiencing god. I find these experiences(though there are many) to not be credible since someone can't prove that the experience is true except the one whom had the experience. There are also natural factors that affect someone's experience. For example, many people claim to have had NDEs, although things like oxygen deprivation and drugs like ketamine affect their experience.
When I say that god is undetectable, I mean that the claim is undetectable by the current equipment that we have available. There may be a day when the supernatural is detectable by science so someone can empirically verify whether or not it does/doesn't exist. As the saying goes, evidence of absence doesn't mean absence of evidence. Mind you I find it highly unlikely that such a time will come, but it isn't necessarily impossible.
Science isn't based on someone's say so though. When a scientist(s) give their conclusions to be published or peer viewed, you can go out and prove/disprove their conclusions by replicating their test to see if you get the same results. For example, mitosis is the splitting of cells. You can replicate the test that scientists used to conclude this. You can prove that mitosis is true by looking under the microscope to see cells splitting. This becomes problematic with god though since it can't be replicated through scientific testing.
I think that one of the good things about science is that it is ever changing. It seems that religion often(not always) holds to a dogmatic position where x is true irregardless of what the evidence says. Science on the otherhand will change/revise its claims as new evidence is discovered or disproved.
Incorrect....There may be billions that think, or believe god exists, but personal beliefs are not admissible in court.
Now you are just treading water...Meaningless..It's not evidence.
Vivid dreams can be anything, but they are not messages, and certainly not evidence of god, or a creator. I have had hallucinations while awake....(from going too long without sleep) Nothing spiritual there, but I can understand why some would think so.
Did I say "belief" or "testifier"? In courts of law the latter are people who have had an actual pertinent personal experience, not just a belief that they did.
How would you know if something is spiritual or not if you deny that there is such a thing? Seems to me that you'd view even a genuine spiritual experience as a "hallucination" or "delusion." (Assuming that those words are not just meaningless labels and it's possible for science to prove that such an experience originates in the brain and is not just translated there into data we can conciously become aware of.)
Last edited by justamere10; 10-01-2009 at 06:52 PM..
I think that personal experiences are more subjective rather than something objective. I consider experiences to hold valuable truth to the individual who experiences them, although when considering claims that hold objective truth, I think that experiences don't hold weight of truth. Experiences also tend to be interpreted by the individual, which seems to me to make it more biased. On the otherhand, results found in scientific testing can be replicated by someone else to see if x claim is true/false. For example, if I did a test on the color of crows and my results made me conclude that 'all crows are black,' you could then do the same test. If you got the same results that I did then you would most likely conclude that 'all crows are black.' If you did the same test, but then found several exceptions. For example if eighty crows were tested and seventy six were black, but four were grey then you would have disproven my conclusion. The conclusion would then have to be 'most crows are black.' In terms of experiential vs empirical evidence, experiental data is untestable whereas empirical data can be replicated by others and independently verified.
This seems to remind me of Sagan's example of the invisible dragon in the garage. If someone says that there is a dragon in their garage and you ask them to prove it. They take you back to their garage to show you, but there is nothing there. The person says it's invisible. If hundreds, thousands etc. people start giving testimonials this may give more credibility to the claim, but it doesn't objectively prove that there is an invisible dragon in the garage. If this were a widely held belief, you would probably reject it since there's no empirical evidence which proves it to be true. Majority belief/experience doesn't necessarily equal more truth though. For example, in medievil Europe the majority of people believed in witches and dark magic. They also said that they had experienced these things. Most people now find these beliefs to be fallacious. This is because it isn't supported by empirically verified evidence. Likewise, many people give testimonials of experiencing god. I find these experiences(though there are many) to not be credible since someone can't prove that the experience is true except the one whom had the experience. There are also natural factors that affect someone's experience. For example, many people claim to have had NDEs, although things like oxygen deprivation and drugs like ketamine affect their experience.
When I say that god is undetectable, I mean that the claim is undetectable by the current equipment that we have available. There may be a day when the supernatural is detectable by science so someone can empirically verify whether or not it does/doesn't exist. As the saying goes, evidence of absence doesn't mean absence of evidence. Mind you I find it highly unlikely that such a time will come, but it isn't necessarily impossible.
Science isn't based on someone's say so though. When a scientist(s) give their conclusions to be published or peer viewed, you can go out and prove/disprove their conclusions by replicating their test to see if you get the same results. For example, mitosis is the splitting of cells. You can replicate the test that scientists used to conclude this. You can prove that mitosis is true by looking under the microscope to see cells splitting. This becomes problematic with god though since it can't be replicated through scientific testing.
I think that one of the good things about science is that it is ever changing. It seems that religion often(not always) holds to a dogmatic position where x is true irregardless of what the evidence says. Science on the otherhand will change/revise its claims as new evidence is discovered or disproved.
Fair enough soldier, that's an intelligent explanation of the secular position. For me, it reinforces my personal opinion that both science and religion are of value as we search for as much TRUTH as we can come by during our brief mortal experience.
You do though wind up with an affirmation that science is ever changing, and therefore what is known by science today is not necessarily abiding truth. (At least with some theories such as apparently today the theory of evolution which has had some doubt cast upon it, according to Fox News.)
"The highlight of the extensive fossil trove was a female skeleton a million years older than the iconic bones of Lucy, the primitive female figure that has long symbolized humankind's beginnings.
"It is not a chimp, and it is not human," said Dr. White. "It gives us a new perspective on our origins. We opened a time capsule from a time and place that we knew nothing about."
Already, the discoveries have experts reworking the human pedigree. They undoubtedly will shape debates about human origins for years to come, as scholars argue whether these creatures should be counted among our most ancient direct ancestors or cataloged as an intriguing dead-end."
Did I say "belief" or "testifier"? In courts of law the latter are people who have had an actual pertinent personal experience, not just a belief that they did.
How would you know if something is spiritual or not if you deny that there is such a thing? Seems to me that you'd view even a genuine spiritual experience as a "hallucination" or "delusion." (Assuming that those words are not just meaningless labels and it's possible for science to prove that such an experience originates in the brain and is not just translated there into data we can conciously become aware of.)
The point is that spiritual personal experiences would not be considered evidence in court, no matter how many say they have had them...You are grasping at straws if you think these can be evidence of god or creation.
Fair enough soldier, that's an intelligent explanation of the secular position. For me, it reinforces my personal opinion that both science and religion are of value as we search for as much TRUTH as we can come by during our brief mortal experience.
You do though wind up with an affirmation that science is ever changing, and therefore what is known by science today is not necessarily abiding truth. (At least with some theories such as apparently today the theory of evolution which has had some doubt cast upon it, according to Fox News.)
"The highlight of the extensive fossil trove was a female skeleton a million years older than the iconic bones of Lucy, the primitive female figure that has long symbolized humankind's beginnings.
"It is not a chimp, and it is not human," said Dr. White. "It gives us a new perspective on our origins. We opened a time capsule from a time and place that we knew nothing about."
Already, the discoveries have experts reworking the human pedigree. They undoubtedly will shape debates about human origins for years to come, as scholars argue whether these creatures should be counted among our most ancient direct ancestors or cataloged as an intriguing dead-end."
The point is that spiritual personal experiences would not be considered evidence in court, no matter how many say they have had them...You are grasping at straws if you think these can be evidence of god or creation.
I understand that spiritual experiences can never be considered evidence for you because you choose to accept only the things your five senses reveal to you. To me, an experience is an experience whether or not other people are having it at the same time in the same place.
The most comforting assurance for me is not the peak experiences that come occasionally, but the ever abiding sweet presence of God's Holy Spirit, always there when I look for it, always testifying of God's love for me, and for you.
I understand that spiritual experiences can never be considered evidence for you because you choose to accept only the things your five senses reveal to you. To me, an experience is an experience whether or not other people are having it at the same time in the same place.
The most comforting assurance for me is not the peak experiences that come occasionally, but the ever abiding sweet presence of God's Holy Spirit, always there when I look for it, always testifying of God's love for me, and for you.
Well you brought the whole court thing up. Glad we got that out of the way, and please save your god loves you and me speeches for someone who cares and believes.
Could you explain to me how in your mind this discovery casts doubt on evolution? I would say that it is further confirmation.
I'm really not into "isms" or "ists" or scientific theories, they don't matter that much to me, my testimony and relationship with God does not rest on any of them. I'm only going by a quick blurb on Fox News television today in which the anchor said that discovery would result in a "rethinking" of the theory of evolution. My guess is that it's big enough news that the next few days and weeks will reveal a lot more about its significance to the people that theory really matters to, and that might include some Christians and some atheists.
Here's a link to Science Mag online, it even has a video for those who are interested:
Well you brought the whole court thing up. Glad we got that out of the way, and please save your god loves you and me speeches for someone who cares and believes.
God cares, guess I wrote that for Him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
