Can science prove God ?

[iNow]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Science can't answer questions that Religion claims to answer.

Like how gay people who love each other shouldn’t be allowed to marry and visit each other in the hospital when sick? Or how women should remain barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen? Or how we should throw stones at them if they were so dishonorable as to allow themselves to be raped?

Edited December 15, 2023 by iNow

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I guess this comes down to the fact that Science can't answer questions that Religion claims to answer. So if you are pondering the unknowable, Religion has something to offer where science does not.

I think people have a craving for metaphysics, whether philosophically grounded or based in a spiritual framework.  Children tend to be indoctrinated in the religious forms, and those that reject that (or grow up in secular oriented households) sometimes gravitate towards options like the paranormal, UFO lore, panpsychism, meditation, the matrix, fringe physics etc.  For many, psychological growth and maturation means losing one's parents as wise, protective beings that create a moral order and home, and then trying to fill that void with a supreme being operating on a universal scale which also offers protection, comfort, and a moral order.  Some religions appeal to people with prepackaged answers and emotional comforts.  Others more austere, like Zen, leave it up to you to work towards some illumination.  And yes, some sects offer intolerance and harsh judgments of others - the hell with them.

 

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, mar_mar said:

I think people lose faith, when they suppose God to to be Wizard, who performs wishes. It's a bit infant attitude.

 

As opposed to the mature attitude that spina bifida is all part of the plan of a loving god.

Face it. Belief in god is no different than belief in Santa Claus.

[mar_mar]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

As opposed to the mature attitude that spina bifida is all part of the plan of a loving god.

Face it. Belief in god is no different than belief in Santa Claus.

This is you who said this. For some men yes, who wait for miracles.

[zapatos]

20 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

This is you who said this.

I know. I was there.

 

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, Phi for All said:

"Addresses"? Religion perpetuates that ignorance, nurtures it, manipulates it. It gives us supernatural answers that are later explained by reason and science. Please do me a favor and spare me all the things you think we don't know that religion can "address". It's a list that's bound to be just as ignorant, since by definition you're just wishfully hoping religion still helps. 

And btw, it's never hard to see the baby unless the bathwater you're trying to throw out is THAT filthy.

I think we're at cross purposes, I'm not suggesting what religion (edit, just for clarity I'm talking Abrahamic) has become has anything to teach us; just that there are passages in the bible that are still relevant today.

My point is, science knowledge is not always relevant to one's life issue's; science isn't designed for empathy.

When dogma settles into a profound script, only the politicians benefit; Just look at the gun law's in America.

10 hours ago, zapatos said:

Face it. Belief in god is no different than belief in Santa Claus.

Indeed, they were both intended to bring a smile, when you've been good at some point.

Edited December 15, 2023 by dimreepr

[iNow]

27 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm not suggesting what religion (edit, just for clarity I'm talking Abrahamic) has become has anything to teach us; just that there are passages in the bible that are still relevant today.

There are also passages in Mein Kempf that are still relevant today, that doesn’t exactly mean we should be using it to amplify what’s best in humanity. 

29 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, they were both intended to bring a smile

I thought that was the tooth fairy.  

[dimreepr]

Just now, iNow said:

There are also passages in Mein Kempf that are still relevant today, that doesn’t exactly mean we should be using it to amplify what’s best in humanity. 

That ignores the context of the entire post, bc there are passages in the bible, that suggest we do good thing's to/for others.

And Santa really does bring a smile, to a grateful child.

[iNow]

26 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

there are passages in the bible, that suggest we do good thing's to/for others.

And there are passages in the bible that suggest we should stone people to death for wearing two different fabrics at the same time or that we should slaughter neighboring tribes and rape their women. So what?

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I think we're at cross purposes, I'm not suggesting what religion (edit, just for clarity I'm talking Abrahamic) has become has anything to teach us; just that there are passages in the bible that are still relevant today.

Indeed, we are. I'm suggesting that there's NOTHING the Abrahamic religions give us that we can't find elsewhere, and we can do it without all the guilt and sin and contrition and penitence and threats of eternal damnation.

What you seem to be suggesting is that we can somehow recycle the good parts and keep them as spiritual guidelines for living. I don't mind reusing something worn but still useful, but you're asking me to keep using something that's been chewed up and passed through the bowels of some of the filthiest creatures imaginable. It's difficult to touch it without contamination. It's been used for some of the most horrible acts I've ever heard of. If it were a toothbrush, I'd have to figure out how to use only the clean bristles on my teeth. If it were something to drink, I'd have to strain the garbage out and take small sips. 

I think you're guilty of the Sunk Cost Fallacy in this regard. You think these religions are salvageable, but I think we'd be so much better off without this template of misery, salvation, and abasement guiding our society. Time to cut our losses and work on actual joy to the world.

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Indeed, we are. I'm suggesting that there's NOTHING the Abrahamic religions give us that we can't find elsewhere,

Even church potlucks?  I love what the Lutherans do with macaroni dishes.  Never mind the need for prompt angioplasty right after eating them.  

No, really, I agree.  However, human social structures being what they are, I suspect that the old Abrahamics will slowly evolve and morph and strain out garbage in a long and painful process.  But I remain an optimist that the long arc will bend towards compassion and consciousness raising and away from a giant angry bearded guy who will toss you in a flaming pit run by his former employee if you touch your johnson.  

[sethoflagos]

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

My point is, science knowledge is not always relevant to one's life issue's; science isn't designed for empathy.

So science is of no assistance in assessing the potential benefits of reciprocity?

Tough on those who were born with a low empathy level and are denied the means to work out that there may be some value in faking it now and then.

[J.C.MacSwell]

18 hours ago, iNow said:

Like how gay people who love each other shouldn’t be allowed to marry and visit each other in the hospital when sick? Or how women should remain barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen? Or how we should throw stones at them if they were so dishonorable as to allow themselves to be raped?

Yes. Religions have answers to those ranging from good through terrible.

Science can't answer them...though I guess some might try to claim they have scientific answers for them.

But I was thinking more along the lines of "what happens to our souls when we die?".

[mar_mar]

15 hours ago, zapatos said:

I know. I was there.

 

May I ask you not a scientific question? For testing your belief system. Do you believe that you have a soul? And don't rush, think wisely.

Edited December 15, 2023 by mar_mar

[Phi for All]

43 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

Do you believe that you have a soul?

Can you define how you're using the term, please?

[mar_mar]

20 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Can you define how you're using the term, please?

Wikipedia

In many religious and philosophical traditions, the soul is the spiritual essence of a person, which includes one's identity, personality, and memories, an immaterial aspect or essence of a living being that is believed to be able to survive physical death.

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

Wikipedia

In many religious and philosophical traditions, the soul is the spiritual essence of a person, which includes one's identity, personality, and memories, an immaterial aspect or essence of a living being that is believed to be able to survive physical death.

So it includes "essences" that can't be measured but are supposed to be tangible, such as "identity". It can contain memories the way the brain can but doesn't need actual physical storage. And it can transcend the need for electrochemical processes even after the body that provides such is dead. 

So my answer is "NO!"

Btw, I used intelligence instead of "wisdom", because I feel when you say wisdom, you mean "a wise person would agree with me". Also, because I have advantage on Intelligence checks.

[mar_mar]

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

So it includes "essences" that can't be measured but are supposed to be tangible, such as "identity". It can contain memories the way the brain can but doesn't need actual physical storage. And it can transcend the need for electrochemical processes even after the body that provides such is dead. 

So my answer is "NO!"

Btw, I used intelligence instead of "wisdom", because I feel when you say wisdom, you mean "a wise person would agree with me". Also, because I have advantage on Intelligence checks.

i feel like a sinner, who crept to a cradle of The Holy Science.

Let's wait for the answer of my interlocutor.

And i asked not to rush.

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, mar_mar said:

i feel like a sinner,

And that is a crying shame. I wish it could be different. I, of course, blame religion.

3 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

And i asked not to rush.

It only took a few seconds to find that there's absolutely no evidence for an immortal soul. I made some tea, ran an errand, and swapped out laundry before answering. I tried to make the wait last longer, but, like your religion, I felt it was wasting my time.

[mar_mar]

Thanks to some guest who were watching this topic

Who is our true God and what is our true religion?

Here is a quote.

On 3/30/2012 at 9:36 PM, immortal said:

The God of this ancient monistic system exists in the external physical world and the doctrine is that multiplicity of the world is false which implies God is all that is there and hence the word 'monism'.

Therefore a human using a pc in a reality which exists only in the mind cannot be the true God.

 

Reality do exist only in a mind. And you won't hide from this, because argument is simple, we learnt it at school.

I understand that system, like system of the society, doesn't want to be shaking, but it's been shaked. And all these movies The Truman Show, The Matrix give evidence that people understand that something's missing here.

The world, or mind, is changing. We can't hold for these medieval concepts. And The Bible says that Kingdom of Heaven is inside you".

So, the world is inside, not outside.

And i think, that God is the state of consciousness. Though God is beyond of all the concepts and expectations.

And i can see how hard it is to abandone concepts.

 

[iNow]

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I was thinking more along the lines of "what happens to our souls when we die?".

I reckon that depends entirely on how one chooses to define soul

3 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

i think, that God is the state of consciousness

I would have to agree with you. God is an invented narrative in your head. Sciences suggests you’ve made god in your image, not the other way around.  

[mar_mar]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

I reckon that depends entirely on how one chooses to define soul

I would have to agree with you. God is an invented narrative in your head. Sciences suggests you’ve made god in your image, not the other way around.  

I'll tell you again , God is more than our narrow minds can comprehend. Why do you think that everything must be such and this, that everything must fit to phisical laws? Eventually it depends on the vision. There are different laws of the nature and they also work. But science doesn't want to accept them. Though it couldn't, because of it's methods.

I also think that we don't die, but go beyond the visual spectrum of the light.

[Phi for All]

9 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

I'll tell you again , God is more than our narrow minds can comprehend.

You're so lucky you've found an argument nobody can ever assail! It's the answer to every unknown, it uses only the knowledge you currently have, it puts all those smartass scientists in their places, and you never have to study or bother with thinking on your own. You can now close your mind for good! 

[TheVat]

19 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

And all these movies The Truman Show, The Matrix give evidence that people understand that something's missing here.

These movies are evidence that people are imaginative and some imaginative people become screenwriters.  

Regarding soul, this seems to be a prescientific concept from the ancient world when the nature of living things was not understood.  When a person stopped breathing, ancient people saw that final breath as some essence leaving the body because it provided a simple explanation to them of life as some animating force.

 

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

I’ll tell you again…

You have literally less than zero credibility with me. You’ll need to try slightly harder than that. 

Just now, TheVat said:

When a person stopped breathing, ancient people saw that final breath as some essence leaving the body because it provided a simple explanation to them of life as some animating force

It’s also just pure wish thinking and refusal to accept the reality of death in our collective lifecycles.