Religion

[Sir Douglas Chapwire]

To state that God can be proven or disproven empirically is a fallacy. Empiricism relies on the scientific method and is intrinsically linked to science. For it's part, science is merely the study of the physical universe; as such, to claim that science can explain the so-called "supernatural" would also be a fallacy, as the supernatural would fall outside the realm of the physical universe.

It's sort of like someone who doesn't agree with big bang theory demanding of one of it's proponents, "What came first? Where did the Big Bang come from?". That's a useless question to ask a scientist - the moment of the big bang itself was the beginning of time, ie t=0. Science begins to describe the universe at the moment that time and space actually spring into existence, at that very point. What came before it lies outside the realm of the physical universe, and as such also lies outside the realm of science. It's like asking, "What continent lies outside the Earth?". It's an illogical question.

Of course, this isn't exactly ideal (as it doesn't relate to the supernatural), but hopefully it gets the point across.

Now, I mentioned that one can't prove the existence or non-existene of God by empirical methods - but you can disprove things like the story of the "Great Flood". I'm sure you've heard more than enough arguments as to why such a flood couldn't have happened, but here are just a few points:

-Animal species which are dependent upon non-European localized ecosystems would have become extinct, since they would never survive the migration back home after debarking from the Ark. For example, the South American trapdoor tarantulas would have had to somehow journey all the way from Europe to the Amazon jungle, over an ocean and through environments which are much too cold to support it. The polar bear would have had to journey back to its arctic home, through thousands of kilometres of temperate zone. The giant panda would have had to journey from Europe to the bamboo forests of China, despite its poor mobility and extremely specific dietary requirements. What did it eat until it reached the distant bamboo forests? Species like this should have become extinct, but they didn't.

-The distribution of recent fossils should follow a radial pattern from the point where Noah unloaded his Ark, irrespective of species. Consider the fact that all of the Earth's creatures had to migrate outward from a single point. This would leave obvious fossil patterns, which we have failed to observe. Instead, the fossil patterns seem to be consistent with a pattern of long-term migrations and evolutionary adaptations.

-How did Noah build the Ark? A simple examination of shipbuilding techniques and manpower requirements reveals that a wooden boat of that size will not be seaworthy because of excessive leakage, and that one man couldn't possibly build it. The act of procuring the necessary wood alone would have easily overwhelmed him.

-How did the ice caps form? They would have been broken up and melted during the flood, and there hasn't been enough time for them to form since then. Moreover, Greenland ice cores show a progression of yearly patterns since well before the Flood, even though the entire mass should have been broken up.


I think you get the point.

[ItalianStereotype]

1. in the dictionary, science is defined as "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena" so it is not limited to your definition thereby casting the first half of your post into doubt.

2. I don't think that anybody actually believes that the Great Flood covered the entire world. I actually accept the theory that Noah lived somewhere east of the Crimea at about the time that the Bosporus broke. this caused drastic flooding along the shoreline of the Black Sea as is evident in the sunken villages that have been excavated over the past few decades.

[CaptainBubba]

Never more than before it is now clear to me that any disscusion that involves religion, even in a slightly irrelevant sense, is pointless because people don't want to think any harder than "I must be right because I think I am.".

Out of curiousity though, could you possibly be so kind as to list these 19 seperate and unique arguments that I've bypassed Paradox?

Vibe: You've begun the spiral into concepts which cause all discussion in any matter to be pointless. (i.e. We can never know anything except that we exist). I guess it'd be better to say you pulled one out of many trump cards.

as the supernatural would fall outside the realm of the physical universe.

Thats essentially what I'm trying to say. God either is in the realm of the physical universe or not. (Or as I tried to put it much less aptly: We can understand it or not).

[Sethomas]

God either is in the realm of the physical universe or not.

Christians would argue that God did assume a tangible form and provided sufficient evidence to his existence. If we believe in the testimony of the synoptic gospels, it's no longer purely metaphysical speculation.

[Vibecrewangel]

We can never know anything except that we exist

And where exactly did I say this? I believe I even directly stated that I think we all know and understand the answer. We all just explain it differently.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what trump card I pulled? Expressing my belief that the word God and the mathmatical equation for the existance of all matter in the universe are both talking about the same concept isn't a trump card. Personally it seems to me that you didn't like the fact that I answerd your question. You wanted someone to prove to you that God exists using a scientific method. Since math is just another form of language and the equation exists, and the subject in question is how the universe came into being then then regardless of whether the answer is in numbers, words, or pictograms is I have done as you asked. I may not be able to perform the equation myself, but I also don't speak latin or russian or greek. It doesn't mean that when someone speaks of God in those languages that they aren't still talking about the same thing as the English speaker now does it?

I must be right because I think I am

This is pretty much your answer. Accept that you are saying "you are wrong because I think you are". Not all that different really.

[CaptainBubba]

NOTE THE (I.E), MEANING "EXAMPLE", AND THE CLARIFIER "ONE OF MANY TRUMP CARDS".

That was an example of a trump card statement in philosophical debate that ends everything by making everything meaningless.

Seth: Is he still in the physical universe now? If he "left it" and is still absent from it, then at the current time he can't be proven or disproven, which is all that matters since we are in the current time.

[Vibecrewangel]

Your're right that is an example. Still having a problem citing mine though I see.

You are upset that you think people are not reading and understanding your posts, but clearly that is what you have been doing all along.

Calm down and stop being so intensionally stubborn. If you really wanted to learn something you could. But when you shut down like that nothing will ever get it. And to be honest, I really don't think you want it too. You have already made up your mind about the answer, so even when someone gives you another you refuse to see it. In this you are being no better than the people you are trying to bait.

I fully admit, I don't believe in Christianity as it is taught, BUT and it really is is a big BUT, it was sitting through a x-mas service that made me realize that the stories my native american family told and the stories of Jesus and several others weren't that different. But instead of being an ass like most pagans and doing the "see you stole it" thing I started to think maybe the events being described actually happened. And that language and culture played a huge part in how they were passed down.

[CaptainBubba]

Originally Posted by Vibecrewangel

. The fact is I have felt it. Just as I have felt love and hate. Depression and elation. You can try to put all of those things into words, but does it ever really encompass what those feelings do to you as an individual? Could you really explain color to person blind from birth? Does that make color any less real? Try to describe the taste of something to someone who has never tasted it. You can say, for example, it is salty. But what if the word salty hadn't been created?
If you had never learned to speak would that make anything you felt or saw or knew any less real? In reality, though words are important to us they are quite meaningless to everything else around us. When you were a child do you really thing you thought in words or did you think in concepts? Desires? Wants and needs? Words came later as ways to describe these things we already knew. We've all heard it before...Children come into this world knowing everthing. Stop and think about how true that statement really is.

The way I interpret this: "I am right. I can't explain to you why. you will never be able to understand why. But I am right" And your last statement in particular is very simmilar to my trump card example.

There is, by the way, practically nothing in that entire statement concerning anything relevant to my posts. You are merely defending religion rather than adressing the more general issue of the metaphysical. You are all being very specific. this is whats mainly making me so angry. You seem fixated on a very narrow view of the entire "metaphysical world".

It'd be like discussing your favorite foods and everyone just said their favorite type of donut. But with infinite types of food and a couple thousand or so types of donuts.

[Vibecrewangel]

You are merely defending religion rather than adressing the more general issue of the metaphysical.

Hmm....let's see stating that science and religion are simply explaing the same thing is defending religion how? Didn't I also add in the universal conciousness? I could talk about the Zen void or the Great Spirit as well. Or any other number of metaphysical examples. Sorry, I guess citing one wasn't enough for you. Perhaps I overestimated your ability to grasp the obvious. Or maybe it was the fact that you specifically asked about God in the beginning.

I am right. I can't explain to you why. you will never be able to understand why. But I am right

If that is what you got out of that statement perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension skills a bit more. Or at the very least get over yourself a tiny bit.

How does my asking you if you think you can explain color to a blind person translate as. "I am right"
Or asking you to explain what feelings and emotions actually encompass?
Or describe a taste to someone who has no clue what the word salty means. Asuming the world salty exists at all.

Pray tell....how does this translate to I am right? Or does your inability to answer mean that YOU think I am right and that just burns you up?

Because seriously Bubba, I have made a very clear case for language being the problem. Which incedently has nothing to with science, religion or the metaphysical other than as a way to describe the subject that YOU asked be used in the begining. All you have done is project your inability to comprehend any answer given onto the rest of the people in this thread.

Now, if you can actually cite an example of my trump card. Or pull out any statement that a rational person could translate as "I think I am right" you may have a leg to stand on.


Oh and by the way, the fact that I used the taste, color, emotion and later the ocean examples show that I am inactuality not "being very specific" I am in fact using non religious examples to help prove that my theory is not just about God / Science. That the language problem effects every aspect of human life.

[kahljorn]

"And for Kahl......you are an odd odd man......an odd salt lickin'.....freak talkin'......strange strange man."

I'm no man! and why didn't anyone respond to perception magic?


"To state that God can be proven or disproven empirically is a fallacy. Empiricism relies on the scientific method and is intrinsically linked to science"

What a moron, how can you state that when your original point states God can't be proven or Disproven, you are relying on a lack of facts. You are using that lack of facts to somehow make your point stronger, which is what you might call ignorance. You don't know if it can be proven or disproven, and you don't know if it could not be proven or disproven. As the same eternal paradox stretches outward(and ironically inward) with that single reflection of NO FACTS.


"as the supernatural would fall outside the realm of the physical universe."

Earthquakes used to be considered Supernatural. Lightning could still be considered Supernatural by what we know of it.

As for existentialism, it kind of denies the concept of Nihilism. What if you only exist for the depravity of another person, technically if God created you and he is omnipotent and omnipresent, then he is you. So you are not you but God, as is everyone else. Saying I exist is a state of individual incarnation and realization, but by means of Christian statements and many other religions you can determine you are not really "I" but "everyone" equavically bringing you to the point you don't exist as yourself, but only as a stone left for someone to trip on.
"I think therefore I am" basically states that everyone around you thinks, and that rocks can think(which brings you to nihilism-- if it were said t hat rocks dont think and they are only there cause your thinking makes them there-- which would more likely be that you are the product of another persons imagination than the opposing element), which refutes all scientific knowledge, since this is a scientific discussion of sorts(or at least that's how it seems) you have to conclude existentialism is merely supernatural and must be excused, with the lack of existentialism most of this argument must be assumed supernatural, and all knowledge can thusly be concluded "Fallacy". Point in case. Candy is great. Floom.

[CaptainBubba]

Vibe: The entire message of your post is an indication that you've strayed from the initial meaning and intent of this post. i didn't ask a question about god, or at least thats not what I was trying to do. This thread has gone terribly awry and I'll admit its partly my fault for miswording my inital message.

Your saying that language gives us an inability to convey conepts would logically reduce to you not being capable of explaining to me this "feeling" you get, or if we take it one step further, anything regarding the metaphysical, thereby ending any possibility of the conversation going any further.

Jesus, its not that hard to see. Or were you just trying to harass me for the sake of seeming as if you posed a question I couldn't answer?

You say that you can understand god but cannot explain it to me because of the limitations of language. I believe my translation is accurate considering this. And just for the record I think its bullshit, but thats a very different thread with a very different theme.

[Sir Douglas Chapwire]

Italian Stereotype
Sure that's the dictionary definition, but the term "phenomena" is very vague in context. Science is based on physical laws, theories, observations, etc., all of which can only be used to describe the observable universe. Obviously if something is outside the observable universe, science cannot describe it because it is impossible to observe either directly or indirectly. It can of course attempt to, however this is the point at which one enters the realm of philosophy, metaphysics, and, should you wish, theology - and the point at which true empirical science disappears.

I also dispute your contention that few people believe in a 6000 year old earth that was once covered by floodwater; I've debated many a fundie over the last year online, and they all have truckloads of so-called "evidence" to prove their asinine "creation theory", which ignores the fact that biblical creationism is unscientific to begin with and thus cannot be a scientific theory.

I'll add more later, I'm pressed for time.

[kahljorn]

You said "Religion". People think God when they think Religion, it's just one of those things I guess.

[CaptainBubba]

If it helps matters any, my intent in this post was to hear a logical argument in support of the existence of anything metaphysical, because I have yet to hear one and I desperately want to. This is not a "convert to aethiesm" thread.

[kahljorn]

You existing is metaphysical, in any shape and form, no matter if it's nihilist or creationism.

[CaptainBubba]

Thats why I used "religion" instead of metaphysical. Ok. I'll give it another shot: The existence of something which cannot be proven or disproven.

[Sir Douglas Chapwire]

kahljorn is correct. I think it's best summed up as such:

=============================================

And You? How Real Is Your Mind?

So, to wrap things up: we live in a place that’s not really a ‘place’, we’re made of stuff that’s not really ‘stuff’ and what we see is only a small part of what’s really there. Matter, time, dimensions, the Universe – it’s all lucid, unreal. We live in a kind of bubble that’s not really a bubble, and we’re surrounded by tiny, resonating strings that play a kind of multidimensional music we call ‘matter’. Pretty confusing, don't you think?

Gladly, you can cling to this one security: that you are here. No matter how weird the stuff around you is, you are definitely for real. No need to explain: you just know you are.

But do you really?

Let’s do an experiment. Speak out your name over and over and over and over again. After a while, you’ll notice something weird. Your name will begin to sound strange. It’s no longer something that is you – your name is just a word, a random sequence of syllables and sounds that other people utter when they want to catch your attention. If your parents had given you another name, you would listen to another sequence of sounds.

The same happens when you look in the mirror. Stare at your own face long enough, and you’ll suddenly realize it’s just another face. The face in the mirror is, of course, yours. But after a while, it won’t feel like that anymore. The face you see could be anybody's.

Most neuroscientists agree the same applies for your consciousness. The thing you call your ‘self’ is most likely an illusion, created by your brain. Your brain gives you vision, sound, speech, feelings, and thoughts. When you add all these things up, you’ll have some overall feeling of awareness you call your consciousness. But still, your brain is the thing running it. Your feeling of ‘self’ is best compared to a software program running. It looks very real – but it isn’t.

Of course, most people believe there is something like a ‘soul’ or a ‘spirit’ living inside of you. But when it comes down to facts, there just isn’t any evidence for that. Every thought you have, every move you make, every emotion you feel - it’s just brain, brain, brain.

There are actually experiments that prove it. When you disturb your brain in a certain way, your feeling of ‘self’ can get detached from your brain. Suddenly, it will feel as if ‘you’ are not inside your body anymore. You experience what is known as an ‘out of body experience’, or a ‘near death experience’. But you don’t have to be nearly dead to feel it. The sensation can easily be created in a laboratory, by placing a helmet with rotating magnetic fields on your head. The magnetic field acts like a ‘jam signal’ on your brain. Suddenly, you'll feel like you're floating outside your body. But you aren’t. It’s just your brain going confused.

And you don't really need a helmet to do the trick. Visiting a place where the movement of the Earth's crust generates magnetic fields can give you the experience. Being in a situation where your brain doesn't get enough oxygen sometimes does it. Certain brain operations bring out the experience. Meditation and intensive prayer can generate it.

In fact, exactly this is why some people see ghosts, or Maria, or feel like they are visited by aliens. It is an incredible weird experience to be ‘outside of your brain’. Your brain will try to make sense of it. Immediately, the rational part of your brain will come up with an ‘explanation’ for the experience. You will sense a ‘presence’ near you. If you’re religious, you might see Maria, or Jesus. If you believe in UFOs, your brain might tell you you’re visited by aliens. If you believe in ghosts, you’ll feel the presence of a ghost of a dead person. But in reality, it’s your own feeling of self you’re experiencing.

==============================================

Taken from here.

[Vibecrewangel]

Bubba - I suggest you go back and look at your posts. You continually brought up God from post one. And any time I strayed it was in direct response to one of your questions or comments.

In one final attempt to explain it to you. When someone talks about God with me, I understand them to be talking about what I call the singularity that is all the infinite possibilities in existance. The wording is different, but the meaning is the same. THe problem is most people are caught up in the words and the meaning gets lost. Just as when someone talks of the Great Spirit or the Zen void. The problem is that when I use my words they don't mean anything to say a Catholic. In the case of something like God, the best and closest example I can come up with is an emotion. We all know what love is. We understand it. We feel it. But to explain it......that is the hard part. We have come to a group concensus to call the feeling love (in english). When it comes to those great big things beyond us but that we all know and understand we still haven't come to an agreement of what to call it. That's all. Try to get past the words to the meaning and you'll see what I am saying.

Now, to try and find you the answer you want.
What would you consider proof? Without knowing what you will accept and what you won't I can't find the proof you want. In other words, what language do you want it in? Visual evidence? Scientific method that comes to a hard conclusion?
I'm asking since the fact that almost all religions tell similar stories is not enough for you (when it comes to that end of things) I would need to know what you would consider proof.
I'm not being sarcastic. I'm being completley serious. But I am going to tell you that if you don't know what you will accept as proof then you are unlikely to accept any answer. And then you will have to do what I suggested earlier and go have your religious experience or epiphany or solve that theoretical equasion and come back and explain it to us. I mentioned it before and you didn't like the answer. Sometimes there are things that you just know but to explain it......
Ever done tech support? Some people just don't get it no matter how many times or in how many ways you go over it.

[Vibecrewangel]

Mr. Chapwire, that was lovely.

[CaptainBubba]

Scientific method that comes to a hard conclusion. But not just that. I would need to know what people mean by god. To believe in something I need to at least have an idea of what it is.

I don't bring up god. I respond to posts which bring up god. God would obviously fall into the classification of the world of the unprovable and undisprovable/metaphysical/ and religious. Unless he doesn't, which was one of the big issues of my initial post.

I do see what you mean by your language comment and I see what your saying. Its a valid point, but it assumes that there is a god and that it just can't be conveyed.

But I find it bitterly ironic that at the moment I have mentally reached a standstill as I cannot think of any way to convey to you my thoughts on the topic I initially wished to discuss. Maybe I'm just sleepy. I wish I could start this over.

Chapwire: Cool article. And ya. Thats a big trump card right there. heh.

[kahljorn]

Dude, my lips are chapped.

[Vibecrewangel]

That made me laugh. It is irony. I like irony.

Honestly, do you really think that cultural differences play absolutly no role in how things are described? Especially ancient events since scientific method didn't really exist then. Would someone who lived in a dessert 2000 years ago describe a comet passing overhead the same way an islander would? Or someone in the jungle? What about a matriarichal society versus a patriarical one? Or a tribal versus one with an organized church? How about if one group experienced a disaster shortly thereafter and connected the two in the telling? Take into consideration that linguistics come into play as well and you have what I am talking about. Many different ways to explain the same event.

So like I said before, you want a scientic answer and I'm telling you that IMHO the equation that explains the existance of the universe is just another way of taking about what some people call God. It is just coming from a different frame of refference than the religious one. The event, the creation of the universe, remains constant.


If you want, come up with another metaphysical event and I'll do what I can to find the scientific evidence....just remember, I can't run the equations myself, but I can find them.

[CaptainBubba]

Honestly, do you really think that cultural differences play absolutly no role in how things are described?

Uhhhhh, dude, I agreed with you on that.

Anyway, let me see if I understand you correctly. You're saying you can provide me with scientific evidence (In English, with western cultral influences) that proves the Christian god exists?

Btw, are you being sarcastic about the irony? Cuz there really wouldn't be a reason for you to be, but it kinda sounds like it.

[Vibecrewangel]

No I really do love irony. It bites me in the ass all the time. If it weren't for irony I wouldn't learn anything. (honestly no sarcasm)

Anyway, let me see if I understand you correctly. You're saying you can provide me with scientific evidence (In English, with western cultral influences) that proves the Christian god exists?

No. But if you are willing to remove all cultural references and get to the base meaning then I really don't have to do much. If you remove all the cultural references you are pretty much left with
God = creator of the universe
Since creator implys a human cultural reference I will strip that down even further to

God = creation of the universe

so if you compare it to

Solution from the equation for creation if the universe = creation of the universe

You have the comparison.

Unfortunately, you seem to be just as caught up in the language and references as the religious people are. That isn't a bad thing. Hell, most everyone is. But to get to the comaprison you have to be able to let go of those references. For me it started with simply being able to compare one religious story to that of another culture. When I started looking into physics I realzed that the "story" was the same. It just lacked any cultural reference at all.

[CaptainBubba]

So you don't think any religious literature is literal (i.e. god is actually the big bang/whatever happened at the beginning and not a big black man with white puffy hair in the clouds) ?