Can science prove God ?

[mar_mar]

18 minutes ago, Eise said:

Yes. It is the eradication of all evil on earth by God, reestablishing his kingdom on earth.  According to Jesus it had to occur soon, maybe even during his lifetime, but surely very soon. Church members of Paulus were greatly worried about the fact that some of their companions had died, even before the last day.

So the kingdom of Heaven should have been in place here on earth for already nearly 2000 years according to the bible. So the bible is wrong.

Religion is a subtle topic, because there's so much subjectivity in it. The only objective knowledge about God is The Bible. And The Bible says that "Kingdom of Heaven is inside you". And everything is in God's power, and there's no evil, the only real evil is a sin. And that evil on Earth is the result of a man's free will. 

And yet you have to use due instruments for understanding religion. You can't measure a weight with a ruler.

[Eise]

50 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

The only objective knowledge about God is The Bible.

Moslims, Hinduists, Jews, etc would not agree with that. The bible is a bundle of different writings by many different people, and it was decided by humans which writings it would contain. So it is a collection of subjective impressions by many different people. It definitely is not 'THE Word of God'.

54 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

And The Bible says that "Kingdom of Heaven is inside you".

And the bible says that the Apocalypse was expected during Jesus' lifetime, or shortly after. 

[Phi for All]

13 hours ago, mistermack said:

You seem to think your raw opinions are meaningful without facts and evidential support. 

I can provide my evidence on request, and I knew I could BEFORE I posted. I didn't make this statement blindly, IOW.

[HawkII]

I haven't read any of this but, considering the Universe and the Brain are similar structures AND I believe in Ghosts, it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to me that IF God was real, Science would find 'em.

[mistermack]

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I can provide my evidence on request, and I knew I could BEFORE I posted. I didn't make this statement blindly, IOW.

So, so long as the facts and evidential support are safely stored inside your head, you are free to post without them? I suppose that's one of the benefits of moderating. 

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

So, so long as the facts and evidential support are safely stored inside your head, you are free to post without them? I suppose that's one of the benefits of moderating. 

The way discussion works here is you should be able to cough up the evidence that supports any stance you assert if someone questions it. Now that you've questioned my stance, I'm prepared to defend the assertion I made. This is what you fail to do often enough that it's been a problem. You adamantly refuse to support some of the stuff you claim, and it gets pointed out on the regular. You claim it's your opinion, yet you refuse to state it that way. You seem to want a way to make your assertions without earning the right.

My assertion was "If religious faith disappeared, the rest of us could progress and create heaven here on Earth." Organized Christians in the US are preparing to take steps to remove our current democracy, supporting Christian Nationalism through Project 2025. Some believe their religious goals can only be achieved by the destruction of human society and Armageddon. Religious faith seems to be undermining democracy in most areas. They object to science, to progress, to healthcare, birth control, and social spending. They insist on tiered morality with their god and them at the top and the rest of us somewhere below them. Without their obvious blockades the rest of us could create a remarkable society where it actually looked like people cared for all other people.

 

 

 

All you have to do is ask me to support my stances. If I posted it here, I'm willing to defend it. And you can make damn sure that if I offer my opinion, it's going to sound like one. It'll be something inconsequential, like "Man, I think metallic lime green is the most obnoxious color on the planet!"

 

[mistermack]

15 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You adamantly refuse to support some of the stuff you claim,

Would you kindly provide support for that claim?

[iNow]

21 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Would you kindly provide support for that claim?

I could, but it’s not worth the time. I’m glad you’re here, but not when you act like this. 

[Phi for All]

21 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Would you kindly provide support for that claim?

Fortunately, you admitted to it very recently:

Quote

As for unsourced conjecture and opinion, I write my own posts. I would have thought that would be obvious by now. 

It has been obvious and it's time to stop it. It boils down to "Why does mistermack get to make assertions, refuse to back them up, and later claim they're just his opinion and conjecture?" You should know by now how sloppy gets jumped on here. I don't think we're asking too much of you.

[zapatos]

32 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Would you kindly provide support for that claim?

You can act awfully childish for a person your age. 

[mistermack]

45 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Fortunately, you admitted to it very recently:

What utter rubbish. The words "unsourced conjecture and opinion" were from Swansont, not me, and I quoted them in reply, as I'm sure you're well aware. If you have to sink to that to try to make your point, it's pretty sad.

I posted a graph, commented on the trends it did and didn't show, and yes, I didn't link it's wikipedia origin. People do that all the time on here. I provide plenty of links but missed that one. But I did provide the link in the very next post. 

If you can't comment on a graph that you've posted, what's the point??? The point of the post was the trends in the record. People were perfectly free to disagree, and point to errors of fact or logic. That's how discussion usually works. You call my comments unsupported, but they were directly about the graph shown, visible to all.

[Sensei]

On 12/4/2023 at 2:16 AM, Phi for All said:

If religious faith disappeared, the rest of us could progress and create heaven here on Earth. 

..progress is failing miserably so far..

..with money as the driving force behind any human activity, God doesn't have much faith in this project..

 

 

On 3/24/2019 at 4:19 PM, dimreepr said:

do you remember the last time?

..that is the beauty of restart option.. you don't remember..

 

Edited December 5, 2023 by Sensei

[swansont]

22 hours ago, mistermack said:

What utter rubbish. The words "unsourced conjecture and opinion" were from Swansont, not me, and I quoted them in reply, as I'm sure you're well aware. If you have to sink to that to try to make your point, it's pretty sad

So it didn’t occur to you that it was “I write my own posts” that’s the admission Phi is referring to?

 

22 hours ago, mistermack said:

I posted a graph, commented on the trends it did and didn't show, and yes, I didn't link it's wikipedia origin. People do that all the time on here. I provide plenty of links but missed that one. But I did provide the link in the very next post. 

And it was the conclusion you drew, absent any actual analysis - contradicted in the very wikipedia page where you got the graph. Thus, you posted an opinion. My characterization was spot-on.

 

22 hours ago, mistermack said:

If you can't comment on a graph that you've posted, what's the point???

A graph that represents factual data. Commentary that has no basis in fact is not science. If you aren’t willing to engage is a scientific manner on a science forum, what’s the point? 

[iNow]

On 12/4/2023 at 7:29 PM, mistermack said:

Would you kindly provide support for that claim?

Here it happened yet again

 

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/132850-what-are-the-benefits-of-understanding-our-free-will/page/9/#comment-1255975

Quote

I can't believe this. You're demanding studies for the bleedin obvious now? I can't imagine any reputable organisation would risk the embarrassment of taking part. Or spending money on it. 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 12/4/2023 at 9:12 PM, Phi for All said:

 

My assertion was "If religious faith disappeared, the rest of us could progress and create heaven here on Earth." 

 

Do you really believe we are capable of that just through elimination of religious beliefs?

I can see some aspects of religious beliefs being detrimental, but I can't see even elimination of all of those leading to heaven on Earth...though it might go some way toward reducing Hell on Earth.

I'm not sure if there is any religious faith pervasive in the rest of the Animal Kingdom...but I see plenty of angst out there even within same species.

I guess we are smarter than them but are we smart enough? Is our DNA wired in such a way it could possibly work?

I think we are limited to just making progress and I think we are capable of that if we work at it...possibly even with the help of some of the better religious teachings from all faiths...and hopefully with the reduction of the detrimental ones.

It's a small planet and we evolved in a much bigger one relatively speaking.

We also evolved with religious beliefs. It may have helped in our survival, with the "fitter" (don't read as more or less ethical) religions evolving and out surviving less "fit" ones.

[Phi for All]

15 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Do you really believe we are capable of that just through elimination of religious beliefs?

I do. I think religion is the single most dangerous, evil, superstitious, dehumanizing practice we have ever allowed to be perpetrated on decent humans, and I think the vertical morality it engenders has held us back for millenia. I would argue that the Abrahamic religions alone have stunted our growth as moral intellectuals, and that without them we'd have a much firmer grasp of the importance of this very thin band of atmosphere that holds every bit of life we know about.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

I do. I think religion is the single most dangerous, evil, superstitious, dehumanizing practices we have ever allowed to be perpetrated on decent humans, and I think the vertical morality it engenders has held us back for millenia. I would argue that the Abrahamic religions alone have stunted our growth as moral intellectuals, and that without them we'd have a much firmer grasp of the importance of this very thin band of atmosphere that holds every bit of life we know about.

That reflects on why you think religions are detrimental, and I can partially agree. 

What makes you think we can reach utopia if unburdened by religion?

Human nature, both the good and bad, will still affect the process.

The Ten Commandments are really not that bad...but even the one's who believe in them most break them...along with Atheists, Agnostics, and everyone else.

[sethoflagos]

23 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That reflects on why you think religions are detrimental, and I can partially agree. 

What makes you think we can reach utopia if unburdened by religion?

The goal may indeed be very distant; possibly unattainable for many generations to come. But is that any reasonable excuse to stay clinging on to the old shackles of the distant past that have clearly denied so many the opportunity to realise their full potential for so long? 

[iNow]

48 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I do. I think religion is the single most dangerous, evil, superstitious, dehumanizing practice we have ever allowed to be perpetrated on decent humans, and I think the vertical morality it engenders has held us back for millenia. I would argue that the Abrahamic religions alone have stunted our growth as moral intellectuals, and that without them we'd have a much firmer grasp of the importance of this very thin band of atmosphere that holds every bit of life we know about.

When religious practice wanes, humans appear to replace it rather often with less savory tribal affiliations like MAGA and Incel (and rather often both at once).

Christian nationalists are Trumps strongest base, after all. It’s not just the American Taliban. It’s MAG-Qaeda! 

24 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

the old shackles of the distant past that have clearly denied so many the opportunity to realise their full potential for so long? 

And raped children. Don’t forget about all the child raping. 

[sethoflagos]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

And raped children. Don’t forget about all the child raping. 

Bogus positions of undeserved influence and authority will always attract the walking dog turds of our communities. 

[iNow]

Especially when celibacy and bluing balls are prerequisite. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

The goal may indeed be very distant; possibly unattainable for many generations to come. But is that any reasonable excuse to stay clinging on to the old shackles of the distant past that have clearly denied so many the opportunity to realise their full potential for so long? 

No.Not at all. If you read my immediately previous post...

 

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think we are limited to just making progress and I think we are capable of that if we work at it...possibly even with the help of some of the better religious teachings from all faiths...and hopefully with the reduction of the detrimental ones.

 

I did cite the Ten Commandments as being not bad. I didn't claim they were perfect.

Human nature being what it is we do need to work toward a set of ethics we can hold people to.

In utopia of course you don't need them.

[sethoflagos]

24 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No.Not at all. If you read my immediately previous post...

 

I did cite the Ten Commandments as being not bad. I didn't claim they were perfect.

Human nature being what it is we do need to work toward a set of ethics we can hold people to.

In utopia of course you don't need them.

I fully take on your point of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater and agree wholeheartedly.

However, while monolithic organisations are able to claim ownership and flag wave these beneficial ethics as symbols of their fitness to hold sway, rather than see much in way of benefit we tend to get lumbered with all the detestable baggage following on in the wake. 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

11 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

I fully take on your point of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater and agree wholeheartedly.

However, while monolithic organisations are able to claim ownership and flag wave these beneficial ethics as symbols of their fitness to hold sway, rather than see much in way of benefit we tend to get lumbered with all the detestable baggage following on in the wake. 

 

Even the best of intentions get twisted in favour of those in positions of power...all a matter of time...something enduring religions have had a lot of...

But how much better can we do unburdened by some of the more detrimental aspects of religious faith?

...and how do we get there?

It seems to me the right amount of religious and atheistic tolerance would be helpful, just as the acceptance of some of the worst aspects would not be.

[Phi for All]

15 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That reflects on why you think religions are detrimental, and I can partially agree. 

What makes you think we can reach utopia if unburdened by religion?

Most of what makes the Abrahamic religions horrible is the vertical morality they push on everyone. It implies there is a hierarchy of moral character that must be earned in artificial, hypocritical ways (attending church takes precedent over kindness to someone of another faith, for instance). It's difficult for humans to stand together when some of them want to be elevated above the rest.

In my opinion, the key to a modern human society is a focus on helping each other rather than on helping ourselves, something religion only claims to be interested in. We've been fooled into thinking rugged individualism is the epitome of human behavior, but it's only made us weak and isolated, perfect prey for those who want to control us. 

I think calling it Utopia is misguided. If we can have a society where we don't stupidly ignore the worst pressures and stresses so an elite can have more than others, it's not going to be perfect for everyone, but hopefully it can have far fewer people barely clinging to their existence and also far fewer people buying shadow yachts with servants and toys trailing the main yacht. 

15 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Human nature, both the good and bad, will still affect the process.

I think removing the concept that there are people who are more worthy than you will have a dramatic effect on our humanity. If the only help we can expect is from each other, I think others will have much more value. I also think bad human nature will no longer have a pious place to hide.

15 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The Ten Commandments are really not that bad...

Really? The first four are about their god being jealous. The fifth assumes your parents knew exactly what they were doing, and helps set up the vertical morality the church wants. The rest all focus on negative aspects of our existence, rather than a more positive, uplifting, I don't know... spiritual stance. We're commanded not to kill instead of being commanded to honor life. We're commanded not to steal rather than being commanded to respect the property of others. Modern psychology has a LOT to say about focusing on the negative, none of it good.

And for a list of things our very souls rely on, it has no nuance for situations where we might need to kill in self-defense, or end a life for medical reasons, or help a woman leave a dangerous husband. Lies have been judged to save lives in certain circumstances, but they're all against the Commandments. 

 

14 hours ago, iNow said:

When religious practice wanes, humans appear to replace it rather often with less savory tribal affiliations like MAGA and Incel (and rather often both at once).

But those specific tribal practices are just as vertically arranged as Christianity. They're looking for authoritarian leaders because in general they don't know what the hell they're doing. 

If we can promote the idea that nobody is better than anyone else and therefore we need to help each other, I think we can eventually remove this idea that we all need to look out for #1 because nobody else will.