Are you saying an omnipotent divine being cannot/should not produce physical evidence to prove its existence to human beings who are supposed to believe in him? Why? Are you saying if there was a god, then all the atheists would receive some rather harsh punishments irrespective what kind of lives they lived before their deaths?
1) Your creator owes you nothing really. The way I see it, he has created evidence. I'm not as picky as you to wonder why God didn't leave me a videotape of himself creating the universe with good enough quality to ensure that it wasn't doctored. For me, the evidence is enough. I see it everyday. For you, maybe you need to be more convinced. Maybe you need to search more. Who knows, perhaps you won't ever be convinced. But there is no line to draw and say "there is no evidence" or "there is evidence" because there's no physical hard evidence. You build up to faith by acquiring information, judging its accuracy, its relevance, the ability of someone to produce it so long ago, its helpfulness, the likelihood that it is useful, things like that. At some point you say whoever did this is not your average joe. Then you have faith. It's like meeting a new girl and at first your skeptical, but after a year, you trust her and don't have to verify everything she says with a friend. You know her. You trust her. You have faith in her. Is there any physical evidence to show she's trustworthy other than accounts of her actions, things she's said, and how right/wrong she's been in her actions? 2) I struggle with this. In Islam there's a saying. "Inama Al A3maalo Be-neyyaat." Translated: However, a person's deeds are judged by their heart's intentions. There's a lot in Islam about seeking information. Especially today, any information you seek, you will have it. Not seeking enough information to make an educated decision on the existence of God is where I think the line might be drawn. The way I see it, it's the heart, effort and intentions that count in the end.
It seems that you've already accepted the theory of creationism before questioning it. If you are going to use religion to explain the existence of everything, then obviously you are not going to question the validity of religion. The problem for non-religious people is that they think there is an alternative explanation to the origin of the world -- i.e. the big bang and evolution. Since they can find plenty of evidence to support their scientific theory, they choose not to believe in the creationism theory -- for which they cannot find any supporting evidence. That's the thing. How can you have faith in something that there is no physical evidence for? The problem of religion is that everything is ultimately explained by the existence of god, but religion can only assert the existence of god, it cannot prove it. I wouldn't use the word "faith" here, I'd use the word "confidence". Well, if this new girl told me that the sun wouldn't rise tomorrow morning ... I'd probably not trust her. Similarly, I wouldn't believe her if she told me there was a teapot revolving around the Sun somewhere between Saturn and Jupiter. If your most trusted friend told you that he saw Jesus walking on water 2 days ago, would you believe him? If you cannot trust your most trusted friend, why would you trust someone who died thousands of years ago? Whose fault is it if a person searched but failed to find enough information about the existence of god? If an atheists did serious search to prove the existence of god and ended up believing that god didn't exist, would this be a sin more serious than murder?
"The best data we have (concerning the origin of the universe) are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Pslams, and the Bible as a whole." -- Nobel winning physicist, Arno Penzias Please understand that there's another group...there are people who believe that God created and that we're just beginning to understand how He did so...in small pieces. Remember, 100 years ago scientists were telling us all that creation was eternal...that the universe was eternal. We eventually came to learn that there was a beginning.
We’re not that far apart in our positions then. Mine was kind of a general response to some of the statements in your post wasn’t meant to single you out in particular, btw, so I hope it didn’t come across as personal. The only point I would probably differ with you on is that from a social science point of view, and I’m thinking more of qualitative research methods in particular, I think you can study the impact of the belief in God in various cultures and individuals and draw some well supported conclusions about the existence of God. You can certainly draw conclusion about the belief in God and it’s impacts, but I think you could go further and look at, for example, whether and to what degree that belief in individuals is merely a compliance with an external set of rules that they have learned and adopted, or whether it is a personal faith that comes from personal experience and from within the individual and is similar to other people’s faith by its nature. So while I agree that we can’t currently take a sample of God’s DNA and run it through a lab, we can do a lot of other scientific studies to look at the existence and impact of God in the lives of real people.
Prove God? Prove Religion? I am proof of God not science. I think it would be far wiser for scientists to get started on the question- "What happens to man after death?" Isn't that more important than Big Bangs and cosmic soups? Science does well telling us what the evidence says about rocks, quasars, and old bones... but could we get a better picture of the meaning of life or what happens to the soul after death or why people can't love each other. Here's a few increasing problems that could use the scientific method and new theories or solutions that actually work... (in short man with all his intelligence is still struggling to do right) rising divorce rates racism youth crime war sexually transmitted disease government corruption the poor child p*rn drug trade terrorist attacks spousal abuse child abuse teen runaways When men get their own act together I will listen more intently as to why God could not have created the earth.
I enjoy reading articles in social science (the stuff I can understand), but I think the insights shared should not lead to a definite conclusion. There used to be claims about the end of science or the end of philosophy in our history. We make the same mistake again and again by ignoring the fact that for every question answered, the answer asks more questions. I think it's why some religions give ambiguous guidelines. It's our nature to promote dogma, but they were vague for a crucial reason. I mentioned before that religious and supernatural experiences can be real to a person or group yet can't be categorized again in a repeatable fashion. There's also a strong emotional component in religion that can't be dissected by science. An analogy to explain what I'm saying is that science would describe a painting as binary numbers while religion would describe it with colors and feeling. Whatever science proves or disproves, any person can always claim that God was responsible for it beforehand. If you have an atheistic mindset, then religion is in the infinite realms of philosophy while science is confined to our finite knowledge and information. So no, they don't conflict. People force them to conflict out of other personal or institutional agendas. I'm not saying that. Even if science proved a God, there always remains the possibility of another God. Because every person's opinion is unique and public opinion changes as quickly as the weather, the religious God will always be unfalsifiable because of that possibility. No matter who or how many accepts this science approved God as the religious approved God, the ultimate God will always remain a mystery. If I believe you, then what happens to your intended point? I have an unreasonable belief...now what? I think the path towards understanding/reaching/accepting God is a lifelong process that, despite not making sense to anyone else, is worth attaining for my personal benefit. So it would definitely be reasonable for another person not to understand me from 5 minutes or 5 paragraphs worth of my thoughts. I don't believe in conversions at the sword or pen. Reading Holy books in your spare time doesn't automatically make you more religious; it only makes you a good reader for accomplishing it. Nobody is omniscient. We struggle daily from the fact that we can't read each others minds. But I put a certain degree of trust in the people I know and even the people who I don't know. The people I love unconditionally might not return it in kind, but sometimes I just can't stop loving. It's not so hard to accept that things that happen to you in life doesn't make any sense, so why is it hard to accept that some of the things you do doesn't make sense as well?
I'm sorry, but I don't think a random quote from a nobel winning physicist on the subject of religion is sufficient proof of the existence of god. Let me give you a few other quotes from famous people: I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it. -- Albert Einstein The priest of the different religious sects ... dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight, and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live -- Thomas Jefferson Interesting, which groups is this? Do they claim to be Christians or follow another religion? 100 years ago, the scientists did not have the technology or the theory to explain some of the natural phenomenons that have been explained today. I'm sure that 100 years from now, our understanding of the universe will be even better and more accurate. If eventually, some irrefutable evidence of creation was discovered, then I'm sure all the atheists would happily become religious. However, until then, they will still believe evolution and big bang is more convincing the creationism. Is this fair?
How so? Why is the question of "what happens to man after death" more important than curing cancer, stopping wars and help people in starvation? Why do you think the dead is more important than the living? The problem with research of an afterlife is that people have spent thousands of years researching it, and so far this research has proven to be totally pointless. No one knows what happens after a person dies, except that this person stops to have the ability to actively engage in the affairs of the living. No one has ever even proved the physical existence of ghost or soul. None of the theories on afterlife have any physical evidence -- they are all human imaginations. Research on the big bangs and cosmic soups can help humans (the living) better understand the origin of our world, better understanding will help us predict the future and improve the quality of our lives. Don't you think this is more worthy than researching the dead? The meaning of life is such a vague question. What does it mean exactly? If you are asking how we got here, then science would tell you we got here because of evolution and natural selection, and there is plenty of evidence to support that theory; religion would tell you that god created us ... to do what? No one has proven the physical existence of a human soul, the Jehovah's Witnesses actually believe no such thing exists. As far as I know, there is no physical evidence to support the theory that people can still love/hate each other after they are dead. Therefore, I believe loving and hating are only restricted to living human beings. So why would you look for the answer of love/hate among the dead? Quite a few of these things can be explained to their religious roots -- take racism and terrorist attacks for example. Others can be explained by the nature of humans in the context of medical science and social science.
We all know that emotion is not always rational, that's why our laws are based on logic and rationality, not emotion. Can we say that religion is not always rational and logic too? I think you are comparing apples and oranges. The binary numbers representation of a painting is only a storage method of science. In terms of the understanding/appreciation of a painting, science would suggest that it's to do with the chemical reactions that goes on inside people's brains when they percieve the visual stimuli from the painting. The keyword here is "claim", "claim" is not factual or logical. That's why one should not unconditionally believe in it. We will have to agree to disagree here. This is so confusing, are you talking about polytheism or monotheism here? If I showed you that you made a mistake, what would be the reasonable thing for you to do? What makes convincing yourself of the existence of a god despite the lack of logic and evidence such a worthy thing that you are willing to dedicte a significant part of your life towards? Why would you rather have faith in something whose very existence is questionable, than in your fellow human beings whom you interact with everyday? People do things that they know are wrong and harmful to themselves because it's just human nature. The most basic human instinct is to seek pleasure -- that's why people do terrible things to themselves and others because their most basic instinct is powerful enough to override the logical part of their brains. I don't think we should encourage each other to accept things that don't make sense -- we should not let our destructive instincts destroy us.
i posted the quote not to prove the point that God exists...but rather to suggest that one doesn't have to separate science from God. to the contrary, I believe science emanates from God. you asked which groups. tons of Christians feel that way. i feel that way. the Big Bang sounds a lot like creation to me. the cosmological constant sounds like the formula of a Creator to me. i recognize i'm looking for God in those things...but i'm looking for God in all things. in the end, it is faith. faith isn't entirely without reason. but nevertheless, it is faith. i can't prove up God to you like i'd prove up a breach of contract. or like someone smarter than me would prove up some abstract science theory. i can only share my experience with Him. and this probably isn't the best conduit for that. my point about the 100 years ago thing is simply to suggest that those theories you put your faith in today will be bunk in 100 years. just as those theories from 100 years ago are bunk today. we all put faith in something, though.
One doesn't have to separate science from god, but is it the rational/logical thing to do? Can you believe in evolution and natural selection while still believing god created Adam and Eve? I cannot. You believe science emanates from god, what do you base your belief on? If you believe there is a pattern in nature and you try to fit your observations to that pattern, then most likely you will "prove" the existence of that pattern. But this is not how good science works. Science fits the hypothetical pattern to the observation, not the observation to the pattern. The big bang was definitely awesome, but I cannot seem to find anything holy about it. Well, I totally respect your opinion, your religion and your faith. But I think it's not rational. That's the thing, my "faith" (confidence actually) in science is only as strong as the evidence that supports it. If tomorrow someone came along and showed me irrefutable proof that the theory of gravity is wrong, I'd abandon that theory in a heart beat. I feel no loyalty to any theory -- whether it's scientific or religious.
Emotion isn't meant to be rational. Not all laws are logical and rational. Laws are as strong as the people who obey and enforce it. Laws are as logical as the people who write it. Is there any human alive that is always rational and logical? No, storage is one of many functions to binary numbers. The chemical reactions that science suggest would be like C++ or Java. Ultimately, science would break it down into code such as binary but with defined and empirical parameters. Regardless, the painting can't be broken down into a singular definition for subjective ideas such as why it would make a person cry, laugh, or feel the need to destroy it. A joke would be concluded as words that contain references that stimulate certain areas of the brain. Yet it can't be delivered wholesale like a chemical drug. Logic and reason can not explain the need for trivial pursuits such as art and literature. Claims can be either, both, or neither factual or logical. You use your own experiences and knowledge to determine which one of the three it is, but how you came to that conclusion may not be factual and/or logical as well. Scientists have died while never completing their life's work. It's the inevitable fate that 1 great advancement is preceded by hundreds or more failures. Einstein, whom you later quoted, died believing that gravity would eventually be unified with the other 3 known forces. His theory could be both factual and logical, but it can ultimately be proven wrong in our future. Should he have abandoned that pursuit that consumed decades of his life in place of other 'more worthy' endeavors? All I know is that he made that choice and was determined to stick to it. Does it matter? Sure, give me the proof to why it's false. If you just think or claim that I'm wrong, then you might be wasting your time more than you're wasting mine. If God is ultimately unfalsifiable, then asking what the ultimate point is to devote time into a self proven God is a good question. The answer might be obvious to some, but I don't know myself. The convincing are what I see and what I have witnessed in my life. It could be delusion or insanity. I accept that possibility, but I still believe. Thinking so doesn't make me dangerous. I don't believe in forcing my ideas upon others, and I disagree with those who do. No one has lived my life the way I have. While a person can read and understand my history and motivations, it's not the same as being me. That's something in itself that takes so much time to understand, but it's easy not to bother to try. I'm not sure why your choices are mutually exclusive. To me, the most basic human instinct is to seek understanding and to be understood. You could twist that into a form of pleasure that I would want, but that definition of pleasure is so broad that victims of depression and masochists can find pleasure just by continuing to live in their current state. Mass hedonism is a cynical mindset that overlooks the underlying natures toward overriding other priorities for pleasure. The idea of raising children doesn't make sense in either of your statements for different reasons. It's a chore to raise children by giving up your comforts in place of the child's. To a selfish pleasure seeking individual, the rewards towards raising a child would seem delusional or insane. The reasons and justifications people can give would ultimately be spun until no definite or logical conclusion can be made and the only thing that can be agreed upon is that it was the parent(s) choice to raise kids.
What does the strength of the law have to do with the law being logical and rational? True, but it still does not change the fact that laws are supposed to be logical and rational. No there isn't, but that does not mean it's wrong to be always rational and logical. You are still comparing apples with oranges. C++ and Java are programming languages. They don't do anything or represent anything by themselves. It's like the English language is not equal to poems and fictions written in English. There is plenty of research in cognitive science that suggests that brains are just massivly connected neural networks, so far science lacks the insight to the specific structure of this neural network and the specifics of the excitation functions of the neurons, that's why science has so far failed to replicate anything that can even come close to intelligence. The structures are not programming languages, it probably cannot be modelled with the third/fourth generation programming languages. But yes, as far as I'm concerned, with enough mathematical foundation and computing power, it is eventually possible to model brain activities using computers. No it cannot, because different people have different life experiences and backgrounds, and as a result, the neural nets of their brains are configured differently, that's why they react differently to the same inputs. I don't see how this has anything to do with religion. Logic and reason are based on the needs of the respective human -- needs derives from the instinct of pleasure seeking. Ok, a claim that has no irrefutable, verifiable supporting evidence cannot be deemed factual -- because you cannot prove it's true. Einstein is dead, so I don't know what he would say, but if I spent my life trying to prove a theory and then somebody came along and showed me irrefutable proof that my theorm is wrong, then I'd feel very pissed at myself but I will also accept the truth and the fact that I wasted my life. As I said before, I have no loyalty to any theory and my faith in any theory is only as strong as the evidence that supports it. If Einstein was alive when his entire life's research was disaproved scientifically, I'd expect him (or anyone who claims to be a scientist) to have the same attitude as mine. Yes it does, facts cannot be self-contradictory, if a monothesit religion was true, then there could only be one god. I feel we are getting side-tracked here. Let me restate my initital question: if I were to tell you that there was a teapot revolving around the Sun somewhere between Saturn and Jupiter, would you believe me? If you do, why would you believe me? If you don't, why wouldn't you believe me? Well, the keyword here is probability. What's the probability of you dropping a chunk of lead and it turning into gold when it hits the floor? I'd say it's ultimately non-zero. But would you then spend your entire life picking up a chunk of lead and dropping it in the hope that it may become gold? The same can be said about the existence of god. If you are convinced of the existence of god because of your personal experience, would you mind sharing it with me? It's perfectly ok if you are not willing to share. I don't want to intrude your privacy. Because the two competing theories are mutually exclusive, so I have to choose one. Understanding and being understood indeed can bring pleasure to people. But some people get pleasure by purposefully confusing others. I have no idea what you are talking about here. Raising children indeed involves chore, but the reward far outweights the pain (please refer to the theory of hedonism). The reward comes in many many forms: love, companionship, security, just to name a few. Haven't you seen the joy on the face of parents when they look at their children? I cannot see how raising children contradicts the theory of hedonism.
You're describing a very dogmatic faith. You've clearly been exposed to a church or to persons who were extremely dogmatic. Religious people, you might call them. I'm not. I can't say I haven't been that, unfortunately. But that's not where I am today. I'm not arguing right or wrong anymore. I'm not into proving to you how right I am about God...or how wrong you are....or how wrong I think you are...or how wrong you think I am. There was a time in my life where it would have been very important for me to feel as if I was "right." The truth is, God is much bigger than the confines He resides in in my mind. He's bigger than doctrine. He's bigger than the Bible. So even when I get it "right", I only get it partially right. What if Adam & Eve were metaphor? Christians believe God literally lived here among us...that he took on flesh in the person of Jesus. While Jesus was here, he parable after parable to illustrate his point. My point is, I don't need Adam & Eve to be real people to make me believe the claims about God in the Bible. None of that undermines my experience with God in the here and now. Genesis starts with a Creation narrative that was, in my view, God-inspired. It doesn't describe DNA or evolution or the development of comets and black holes. What it does describe, quite simply, is that there was a Creator...there was creation...He called it "good"....and He seeks relationship with us...and we've screwed that up a bit by choosing our own way. It doesn't contain any formulas or descriptions of HOW He created. The Bible isn't one book with one author...it's a collection of books and letters and thoughts and poetry. It's an ancient narrative telling man's story with God. It's not a science text. There are those who would like it to be that. But it's not. I'm not a scientist. So I don't live life under the scientific method. I find it highly irrational to love without condition and forgive and seek the gratification of anyone but myself...but I'm trying real hard, Ringo.
Not really. I was searching for a long time and built my faith from scratch. That's how I think everyone should do it. To me, Islam makes perfect sense. There are things that I struggle and maybe with time and more information, I will understand them. Maybe 10% of a human brain is not enough to understand everything in the Qura'an. Maybe I'm just an idiot and I don't get some things. But I have faith in them because I trust the source of the information. Science and religion aren't two seperate things. In fact, if I wasn't so exhausted from the gay march to mecca thread, I'd dig up some pieces of the Qura'an for you which validate the big bang theory. Mind you, this is way before anyone knew anything about this theory. I wish I had my other computer with the bokomarks. If you have time search "big bang in islam" or "big bang in Qura'an". Maybe you can get a hold of it. Who says God didn't create the whole thing with the big bang? Evolution is another thing. People do evolve, that is accepted. but did we evolve from monkeys and apes? Ther eis solid SCIENTIFIC proof against it, and many people refute Darwin's theory today. That is the definition of faith. I would use "faith". If a few weeks later you saw a teapot revolving around the sun on CNN, then the next time when she tells you "there's also a spoon revolving around earth" you will believe her. If my most trusted friend told me that, I would believe him. People hallucinate. People have visions. People dream. Supernatural life forms exist in Islam in the form of "Jin", which is very loosely described as supernatural beings who we don't see but also exist in the universe. Again, this is a long story, maybe I'll come back later and show you some stuf about this. So if my friend tells me that, I will believe that he believes it, and based on his justification, maybe I will believe him and maybe I won't. Again, if two months later Jesus shows up on earth to "reclaim hsi throne", you will feel really silly won't you? You'll believe him the next time. It's all about trust and credibility. I don't know how serious it is compared with murder. I don't know that that person will go to hell at all. If this person truly seeks God and doesn't find him, then how can he be faulted? Obviously, the person can not be faulted for not having the resources or not having the capabilities to find the answer he was looking for. You are what God made you and you have what God gave you.
^ Concur... Great post MadMax and before I forget and head out to my parents 166 w/dialup (ie. no surfing for the next week)...Merry Chistmas to all!
Totally agree. So were you an atheist before you converted to islam? What kind of searching did you do? Why do you trust the source of the information? Do you believe everything in the Qura'an is correct? It really depends on exactly what you are talking about. I think there are two totally separate and mutually exclusive beliefs -- at least in the context of the origin of our world. If you are refering to this verse "Haven't the unbelievers seen that the heavens and the earth were joined together (in one singularity), then we clove both of them asunder", then I'm afraid I'm not convinced. There is Chinese mythology that says exactly the same thing about the beginning of the universe, but everyone knows it's just a fairy tale. This kind of statements lack details, and are at best ambiguous. People can just interpret them in whatever way they want to suit their beliefs. I'm not aware of any solid scientific proof against the evolution theory. There are holes in the theory, which come in the form of missing fossils/bones that bridge the gap between two different stages of evolution. These holes are not conclusive evidence against evolution -- as scientists constantly dig up fossils. There are many people who refute the theory of evolution, and I bet the vast majority of them are religious fundamentalists. After seeing some of their "proofs", I have to say I find them to be lacking of credibility. I'd still use the word "confidence". Now you are talking about this issue from a retrospective point of view. The original question was about when you had no proof at all. What exactly would you believe? Would you believe that Jesus indeed walked on the water? Or would you believe your friend thinks that he saw Jesus walking on the water? These are two totally different things. And hallucinations, visions and dreams seldomly come true, do they? You are assuming the existence of supernatural life forms before you question their existence, that's not the right order. I would really love to hear about your stories. Please do tell, I'm very interested. You are still talking from the retrospective point of view. What if Jesus never shows up on earth? Are you still going to believe in him or your friend? Fair enough, so Islam should not have problem with atheists or people of other religions?
