Christian I don't post very often in D&D, because I used to get wound up easily. I have really calmed down over the last 6 months.
I just want to point out that you are wrong. There is physical evidence in the form of religious teachings around the world. The physical evidence is stronger than, say, evidence that your great great grandfather existed. Proof of God is a whole other thing. But proof of a guy called Jesus and his teachings is available. No one just made this whole story up along with another set of stories about events in his life. Additionally, just because you can't prove something doesn't mean it never happened or doesn't exist. It just means that you can't prove it at this point in time with whatever resources you have.
I haven't received your email. Could you please try again. If that doesn't work I will notify Clutch. Thanks
Granted, there's proof in the natural, but I think GeeISB is saying that the supernatural bits can't be proved. Supernatural encounters can hold persons or groups. Those people genuinely believe it to be true, but they're rarely performed in a repeatable fashion. Those teachings you mention are not surefire recipies for instant connections to God. No offense intended, but humanity could've come to those teachings just as easy as without God as with God. btw, the methods towards proving the existence of your great great grandfather (genetic sampling, family heirlooms, archive research in the past 120 years) are much easier to accomplish than what you're asking.
Three billion light years away, there is a planet identical to our planet. It is called "Planet Hollywood." Everything that ever happened on that planet, the fate of all souls on that planet, and the happiness of the people, are all determined by a god that looks like a giant lobster with a head that is remarkably similar to Arnold Schwarzenegger's. The people of Hollywood call their god "Ah-Gnold" and read a book that Mighty Ah-Gnold dictated to the prophet Billy Baldwin. Ah-Gnold sacrificed his only son, Steve Gutenberg, so that the people of Planet Hollywood could have their souls immortalized in the walk-of-fame-in-the-sky. Those who do not believe in Ah-Gnold commit a sin against him, and spend eternity being ignored by the Paparrazzi. You must accept Steve as your savior. He was hit by a Hummer2 so your soul could know peace through him. Prove me wrong.
BTW- did you all take the blue pill or the red pill? I think you should always choose the red pill. Aliens created planet earth because we know evolution is part of the Matrix. Elvis and Princess Di are both living on another planet. Jesus miracles proved He was the Messiah, but that doesn't mean you can walk on water- those are illusions on TV- BTW I don't know of anyone but Jesus who can perform miracles so there is no way to prove them. You just have to believe. It's red pill stuff, like aliens (or angels- take your pick)
I just need to step in to point out that this is a statement of faith, not fact. Note also that many things once thought unprovable later become provable, at least by the standards of the day. It wasn’t that long ago that people thought that atoms were the smallest form of matter, but they aren’t. Then it was neutrons, protons and electrons, and this was all thought to be fact, the end all and be all, but it wasn’t either. Then smaller particles started to be found and questions arose about the very nature of matter and whether it was really just energy, etc. The moral of the story is that you can’t discount a theory that fits the known facts but that is not currently “provable.” That is not a scientific position. That is just a different kind of faith based position, one the closes the door on other possibilities and claims to be the be all and end all, and that makes it just another kind of “fundamentalist” faith. Also note that social science “proves” many things by examining the lives of people and societies, by finding patterns and trends in the phenomenon they are observing. When you look at the presence and the impact of spirituality in the lives of the peoples of the world, now and throughout history, you cannot simply blow it all off as myth, at lest not from a sound scientific position. When you drop 1000 balls and they all fall to the ground you can’t scientifically deny the existence of the thing we call gravity, even though we can’t currently prove how it works. Likewise, when you look at 1000 cultures and see the presence and impacts of spirituality, then you can’t scientifically deny the existence of a God. Doing so is a faith based position that runs counter to good science.
Rhester, I just sent another email. I didn't understand why you had not responded, now I know. Hope this one goes through. I sent it at 11:45, 12-19. Thanks
However irrational it may seem, I can't. That's exactly the point I was trying to make. It would seem rational if hundreds of millions of people believed it, and believed through the passing on of a book that this all existed. It would also help to have authentic holy script somewhere. It would further help if, for example, someone predicted the whole thing before there was any chance of it happening. You can add to the likelihood, but in the end, it can't be proven that it happened and it can't be proven that it didn't. What can happen is you can take all the information available to you and make a decision about which side of the story you have faith in.
I wrote 'could have' instead of 'would have' because it's only possibility not an assertion. Since you bring this up, religious faith carries qualities that are different than any scientific theory. I believe faith/religion and science do not conflict. The biggest red herring in any religion vs science debate is whether we can prove/disprove God. God is a non-falsifiable entity or construct depending on the POV from where you stand. The faith that sustains the belief (or disbelief) in God is purely personal and it doesn't need the verification by others or an authority for acceptance. Human nature screams likewise..... Just because I claimed that you can't scientifically 'prove' the existence of God doesn't automatically mean that I also claimed that you can scientifically 'deny' the existence of a God. It's not good science either way. What I meant is that you can't use science as a tool to further positions upon God. And that's what has been happening in our history. One day, science is organized religion's hero. The next day, it's its demon. Both positions are a waste of time because science and religion both have potentially distinct benefits upon people, and one can't replace the other.
What are the qualities that religious faith carry that are different than scientific theory? It depends on the topic of discussion, doesn't it? Take the origin of our world for example. Science believes that the life forms on this planet came into being through evolution and natural selection, without the interference of a supernatural entity. Whereas religion, especially Christianity believes that the life forms on this planet is the direct results of the creation of a supernatural entity. You don't think these two views conflict with each other? This argument is some how flawed. You seem to be saying that it's the failure of science that it cannot disprove the existence of God, but you ignore the fact that it's in general very very difficult (if not impossible) to prove the non-existence of anything. Furthermore, religions are trying to convince non-religious people that there exists one or more supernatural entity who not only created our world but actively engages in our daily affairs. Since the existence of this(these) supernatural entity(s) is not self-evidient to the non-religious people, the burden of proof is on the religious people. For example, if I were to tell you that there was a teapot revolving around the Sun somewhere between Saturn and Jupiter, would you believe me? Would it be reasonable for me to demand you to produce the evidence that disproves my original claim? I'm a bit confused here. Are you saying that it's reasonable for people to unconditionally believe in something whose very existence is questionable?
Verifiable facts? As in physical evidence? Obviously we can't, but that's part of the definition of a divine being isn't it? Logic, yes. But then again, religious people are more gullible than others. Studies have shown that religious people are more naive/gullible in daily life while non-religious people, specifically atheists, are more pessimistic and cynical. Regardless... if there is no God, it's not like I'll regret anything I've done. If there is one though, others will regret denying him.
