What is your justification for believing in a God?

[mooeypoo]

So you have no evidence.

 

 

 

 

We've been asking for positive evidence for the existence of God, and all you can give us is a dance around what science and physics discovered. That's not positive evidence for god, it is, at best, your way of "fitting" god to reality. Good for you.

 

Positive evidence is not evidence that makes you smile, it's evidence that SHOWS the existence of God. Anything other than that is not evidence, it's either dancing around the subject, evading the topic, or using mental gymnastics to fit God into science. I can explain all the above scientific explanation without a need to use God, so clearly they're not evidence for his existence. That's not evidence, and it is getting quite clear you don't seem to have any positive evidence to give us.

 

Okay then. To each their own.

 

~mooey

 

The Holy scriptures are not the only source of religious truths even the oral traditions are and they give us revealed truths, you used the holy scripture to show that God is immoral where as I used the oral traditions to show that he is morally perfect, omnipotent and omniscient. That doesn't mean there are contradictions in the Holy scriptures and the oral traditions its just the latter people interpret the scripture differently. If you're arguing from the Bible then you need to accept the revealed truths of oral traditions or say we don't know about God.

Okay, so where do you get your truth if not from the bible?

 

If the scripture is not the only source, what is your source for evidence? Do you even have any?

 

Also, it may not be the "only" source, but if it's a source at all, then you need to relate to the horrific actions God promotes. If it's a source at all, then according to this source, God's a murderous being that promotes rape. You don't see this as a problem at all?

 

 

 

 

 

I'm really skipping all your other mental gymnastics here. As far as I'm concerned, the evidence for QM has nothing to do with this thread. If QM was "heavenly" or "godly" or *needed* God, we'd be having it through God's word, not through proper scientific research OUTSIDE of the realm of the spiritual.

 

You don't seem to understand what "evidence" is. That's fine. To each their own.

 

~mooey

[immortal]

Okay, so where do you get your truth if not from the bible?

 

If the scripture is not the only source, what is your source for evidence? Do you even have any?

 

Also, it may not be the "only" source, but if it's a source at all, then you need to relate to the horrific actions God promotes. If it's a source at all, then according to this source, God's a murderous being that promotes rape. You don't see this as a problem at all?

 

From the oral traditions and through revelations. For God good and evil as such doesn't exist. From such a perspective its not a problem at all.

 

 

You don't seem to understand what "evidence" is. That's fine. To each their own.

 

~mooey

 

You don't seem to understand how religion works through faith and revelations and accesses revealed truths, empirical observations doesn't say anything about God, it sounds like preaching for the people in the other camp when you use the bible and say God is immoral, those are not evidence based facts, those are your personal interpretations and beliefs and when I use the oral traditions and argue based on the reasoning of revealed truths you condemn it.

 

Any further arguments are pointless.

[mooeypoo]

From the oral traditions and through revelations. For God good and evil as such doesn't exist. From such a perspective its not a problem at all.

I don't see how; God sends the israelites to rape women. Explicitly, he tells them to gather the virgins and use them as sex slaves. Either good and evil don't exist at all (in which case why be good in general?) or god is picking and choosing.

 

For god good and evil might not exist, but it does for us, and in *our* definition of good and evil, that's not good. Do you agree? Or is sending an army to explicitly rape the virgin women considered "moral" in your eyes?

 

I don't see how this argument works, immortal.

 

You don't seem to understand how religion works through faith and revelations and accesses revealed truths, empirical observations doesn't say anything about God, it sounds like preaching for the people in the other camp when you use the bible and say God is immoral, those are not evidence based facts, those are your personal interpretations and beliefs and when I use the oral traditions and argue based on the reasoning of revealed truths you condemn it.

 

You're not in a theology forum, though, you're in a religion subforum in a science forum, and this thread is about justification for the belief in God. It means you need to give evidence-based justification, or give up the argument.

 

If you believe in god without evidence, that's perfectly fine, I have no say about your personal belief. But the goal of this thread was to bring forth justifications, and in our forum, justification are following logical arguments and evidence. Evidence are not just observational, by the way, but they cannot be unsupported.

 

The problem with oral traditions is that you have to pick and choose which ones you follow, and they are not quite good evidence for the existence of God. They can be a guidance of what to do and how to act if you already believe in god's existence, but they prove nothing.

 

There are oral traditions in eurasia about Dragons, mystical gods (multiple) and rebirth, and some oral traditions that stand in complete contradiction to the judeochristian belief. If you go by oral traditions then these are true too. I assume you don't follow these teachings, though, so why not? clearly, there is more to your reasons of belief in god than just those oral traditions - which makes those oral traditions not evidence. Do you see what I mean?

 

Any further arguments are pointless.

In the context of a science forum, yes, I agree.

 

I don't preach back at you, immortal. I take the logic of the points you make and follow their logic to a conclusion. You seem to dislike the conclusion I reach, which is fine, but when you counter my points you're not using the same logical methodology, which is why this argument is, indeed, moot.

 

If you don't have evidence for your belief in God, that's okay. You just can't say you made your point in an evidence-based community.

 

 

~mooey

[immortal]

The problem with oral traditions is that you have to pick and choose which ones you follow, and they are not quite good evidence for the existence of God. They can be a guidance of what to do and how to act if you already believe in god's existence, but they prove nothing.

 

There are oral traditions in eurasia about Dragons, mystical gods (multiple) and rebirth, and some oral traditions that stand in complete contradiction to the judeochristian belief. If you go by oral traditions then these are true too. I assume you don't follow these teachings, though, so why not? clearly, there is more to your reasons of belief in god than just those oral traditions - which makes those oral traditions not evidence. Do you see what I mean?

 

If you don't have evidence for your belief in God, that's okay. You just can't say you made your point in an evidence-based community.

 

 

~mooey

 

The revealed truths are based on the conclusions from the oral traditions of Buddhists, Jews, Upanishads, Gnostics and various other individual mystics and traditions, I accept other oral traditions too, I'm not saying they are not true, the oral traditions imply the existence of other worlds and eventually leads to paganism but I'm interested in the supreme Godhead through which other Gods emanated from and he is the one who gives us the perfect knowledge as I said earlier that even other Gods are in ignorance too.

 

There is nothing special about my adherence to judo-christian belief its just the same pleroma of God which Jesus revealed to others which is very much identical to the pleroma of God as described in other oral traditions which interests me, to dismiss them as mere hallucinations and ramble about God based on logic and reason for a God who trumps logic, reason and empiricism as Dr. Genie said is not an intellectually honest thing to do.

 

I cannot convince the scientific community with these revealed truths but as to whether my beliefs are justified or not depends on the positive evidence of God.

[mooeypoo]

Alright, so there's no real proof of the existence of God, it's just a personal preference.

 

You don't need to convince the "scientific community", I didn't ask for empirical peer-reviewed publication that was repeated successfully. At least I didn't ask for that just yet. I wanted to see if there's even a shred of proper logical evidence, which there seem to not be in your faith structure.

 

This isn't a bad thing, it's just insufficient to convince logically that God exists. All you really can say is that you believe God exists, and therefore God does, and that you take these oral traditions and scriptures and fit them to your belief system.

 

You are absolutely entitled to your personal choice.

We're also entitled to ours.

 

~mooey

 

The revealed truths are based on the conclusions from the oral traditions of Buddhists, Jews, Upanishads, Gnostics and various other individual mystics and traditions, I accept other oral traditions too, I'm not saying they are not true, the oral traditions imply the existence of other worlds and eventually leads to paganism but I'm interested in the supreme Godhead through which other Gods emanated from and he is the one who gives us the perfect knowledge as I said earlier that even other Gods are in ignorance too.

In order to go by all of them, or pieces of all of them, you need to pick and choose. When I asked what's the system you use to know which piece to pick and which not to, you had no answer on that either. It's not following the logic, then.

 

There is nothing special about my adherence to judo-christian belief its just the same pleroma of God which Jesus revealed to others which is very much identical to the pleroma of God as described in other oral traditions which interests me, to dismiss them as mere hallucinations and ramble about God based on logic and reason for a God who trumps logic, reason and empiricism as Dr. Genie said is not an intellectually honest thing to do.

How is that not an intellectually honest thing to do? There's zero evidence that any of those things ever happened, there's zero evidence that any of them *can* happen, and it's more likely that many of those so called 'miracles' were either passionate reiteration of a non-miraculous event or a hallucination. We know hallucinations exist, and we know that when traditions go from generation to the next they become bigger, exaggerated and miraculous -- so why not assume this is the case here too?

 

You might disagree with it, but you can't claim this is intellectually dishonest if you have not even a shred of logical evidence or explanation that follows to the conclusion that this was miraculous, and you presented none of that in this thread.

 

Be careful who you blame as intellectually dishonest, immortal, when your claims seem to involve picking and choosing pieces of scripture and myth and oral traditions without clear systematic method, redefining morality for god vs humans and not following your own claims to their logical conclusions.

 

Maybe you should go over the definition of "intellectual dishonesty".

 

~mooey

[Mosheh Thezion]

We don't care about that, because we don't believe it was random.

 

This is called a strawman. It's not only a fallacy, it's counter productive to the argument. You're arguing against something we are *not* claiming.

 

This thread is about the justification for the existence of GOD. If you want to discuss evidence, it needs to be about the existence (or lack thereof) of GOD.

 

1) the thread is called "

What is your justification for believing in a God?

 

so... you are wrong.

 

ITS ABOUT WHY WE BELIEVE..... THE JUSTIFICATION TO BELIEVE... NOT JUSTIFICATION FOR HIS EXISTANCE.

YOU.. are clearly wrong.... everyone can see that.

 

 

If you want to discuss the evidence of evolution, open a new thread in the Religion forum. I'm sure there will be buyers.

I am not discussing evolution am I????

again... you make stuff up.

I am talking about... the evidence in the heavens... space.... clear... undeniable evidence.

YOU CANNOT IGNORE EVIDENCE.

 

 

 

All of these are physical phenomena that were explained by physics, not by the bible. In fact, for thousands of years of belief in God, mankind was OBLIVIOUS to the explanation of why these happen until proper science emerged, incrementally, explaining them.

 

Actually... your wrong again....(except about the sceince... science is awesome.)

The Bible mentions all of this.. the creation of matter..and its division / speration into bodies in space.

Read it..

 

Verse 2 : And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

 

Verse 3 : And God said, let there be light: and there was light. ( 5D)<br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'trebuchet ms', verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; text-align: left; ">Verse 4 : And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. (perhaps this is 6D, where the developed photons convert to something more.)

THIS EVEN FITS BIG BANG.... LIGHT... BECOMING MATTER...

 

Verse 6 : And God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. (A firmament, a mass in 7D, and 8D where that mass was then divided out into space, the ether, being a tranindental fluid, being the waters.)

 

Verse 7 : And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the water which were above the firmament: and it was so. (9D, 10D, 11D)

 

Verse 8 : And God called the firmament heaven, and the evening and the morning were the second day. (The heavens are complete, 8D threw  15D, atoms exist, and planets and the bulk of the heavenly bodies began to form…)

 

 

 

so again... YOU ARE WRONG... IT FITS VERY NEATLY... EVEN WITH BIG BANG THEORY.

 

 

 

 

 

 

They are not evidence for God. If anything, they're evidence of why science works.

 

NO ONE SAYS... SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK... that is not in question.

I say... the evidence... from science.. supports god as a theory.

 

The fact we "can't really say" means only that we can't really say. It doesn't mean it's true. We can't really say that invisible pink unicorns exists either, but that's not a good reason to believe in them or worship them.

 

Yes, but... the universe is real... very real.... or do you deny this?

gesh.

 

If your definition of "God" is "anything natural" then why should I even worship it? If that's what you use, then we only differ on definition. I call it "nature" and explain it scientifically, and you call it "god" and explain it scientifically (entanglement was not discovered by reading the scriptures, was it)

 

I say, God created nature, to serve us.... we would need it... wouldn't we??? I say its very well done, wouldn't you say?

Scripture... did inspire science... as it is the question of creation, THAT MAKES US ASK... HOW?????

IF WE DID NOT CARE ABOUT CREATION AND EXISTANCE, THEN WE WOULDNT BE ASKING HOW... OR WHY... OR ANYTHING.

You.. really seem to hate religion, to the point of being irrational.

 

 

 

You claim that not only is there a God, but that there's a God that we should worship, a God that answers prayer and has a plan.

You need to bring evidence for that kind of God.

No... again... YOU MAKE ASSUMPTIONS.... I NEVER SAID ANY OF THOSE THINGS.

I NEVER SAID GOD ANSWERS PRAYERS... NOT ME.

I... SAY... "God gives us life and the will to live, but after that does not get much involved. Why would he???"

YOU... HAVE NO IDEA WHO YOU ARE TALKING TOO... IT SEEMS...

DO NOT CONFUSE ME WITH OTHERS.

I put up a list of evidence from the scripture about how God is merciless and promotes horrific behavior. You have skipped explaining this issue. That's not just a problem of god "letting us" make mistakes, those are examples of God ordering people to murder and rape. If rape is immoral, and God orders rape, then god is immoral. Unless, of course, you disagree that rape is immoral. Or, of course, you disagree that god is moral. Or you disagree that the scripture is true?

 

Again... so what... does not a farmer kill off bad crops??? does not someone who wants to evolve flys, have to kill of crops???

And.. did not evolution... as mass extinctions.. end up causing our evolution????

SO YES... GOD KILLS ... AND HAS KILLED.... and we should be grateful... as it caused our evolution.

also...

you.. seem to think... that scripture.. written by men... is actually the words of god.

I NEVER SAID THAT.

YOU.. ASSUME TOO MUCH... AND THAT MAKES AN ASS OF YOU.... BUT LUCKILY.. NOT ME.

YOU.. seem very confused.

 

Scripture.. all forms of it.. in all world religions... are attempts to be godly... obey god.. and set standards for behavior in people.. who are naturally wild and barbaric.

Religion... has done more good than harm... as it generally promote good.. with a few exceptions... as you know.

But on the whole... religion seeks to ask and answer the same questions of science... the how.. and why.. etc.

Do not blame religions... which formed before we had science.

We have science today... so we can form a new religion based on science to ask those same questions.. of how.. and why.

FOR YOU... TO BE BIASED AND ASSUME... ASSUME... THERE IS NO GOD.. AUTOMATICALLY... IS... not very wise... is it... as YOU HAVE NO IDEA.

 

 

 

And please stop beating around the bush. This thread demands a positive evidence for the existence fo God. It's "what is your justification for believing", and you need to bring evidence for God's existence, not of the other claim's "falseness".

 

again... no it does not.... IT ASK FOR A PERSONS JUSTIFICATION FOR BELIEVING IN A GOD.

YOU... ARE JUST WRONG.... WRONG.. WRONG....

THAT IS NOT WHAT IT SAYS AT THE TOP OF THE SCREEN.

 

 

Even if you prove the other claim false, that doesn't mean the only alternative is "God". You need to bring evidence God exists, or you will not be convincing anyone.

 

Not you maybe... with a closed biased mind... but most... can see the patterns... the evidence... and can say... ok.. maybe.

Can you?

 

 

Please relate to my claims directly from the scripture. I posted a list, and then a link with quite a large number of orders by God and from God about murdering children, raping women, and other lovely atrocities. From the scripture that's supposedly God's word.

 

Again.... just because men... like you.. who wrote religions... were wrong.. and confused... do not blame all religion or god.

And the flaws of men... are not evidence that there is no God.. it only proves men.. are flawed...

you.. should understand that much, you... should really understand....

 

 

 

 

I HAVE PUT FORTH... EVIDENCE... FOUND IN THE HEAVENS.

THEY.. SHOW A PATTERN OF UNIVERSAL FORMATION....

THAT... IS NOT RANDOM OR CHAOTIC... but patterned.

patterns... mean... design...

 

This thread asks... why do I believe.... and I believe because the abundance of evidence suggests it... NOT BECAUSE OF SCRIPTURE.

I,, accept scripture... when it fits science... and or is perfectly logical and reasonable... which most of it is... (most.. not all)

 

try again.

 

-Mosheh Thezion

[mooeypoo]

Justification for the belief in God.

 

Anyway, it's very hard to answer your post, you're attacking me for answers I've made to other people, with other claims.

 

This isn't the place to talk abot randomness. "Justifying" a belief in God is giving a positive evidence to why you think God exists, or giving a reasonable explanation. "Just because" is a decent explanation -- one I personally won't follow, but it works. However, explaining why another "belief" is wrong does not explain the justification YOU have for your belief in God.

 

Also, I was not wrong about the strawman. Scientists don't claim everything is random. Please take care to study what people claim before you present a false claim that's easier for you to counter.

 

~mooey

[Mosheh Thezion]

Justification for the belief in God.

 

Anyway, it's very hard to answer your post, you're attacking me for answers I've made to other people, with other claims.

 

This isn't the place to talk abot randomness. "Justifying" a belief in God is giving a positive evidence to why you think God exists, or giving a reasonable explanation. "Just because" is a decent explanation -- one I personally won't follow, but it works. However, explaining why another "belief" is wrong does not explain the justification YOU have for your belief in God.

 

Also, I was not wrong about the strawman. Scientists don't claim everything is random. Please take care to study what people claim before you present a false claim that's easier for you to counter.

 

~mooey

 

I responded to your direct response AT ME.

 

IT WAS YOU.. who attacked me.. based on things others have said... so again.. your wrong.

 

I never said "just because"... you keep saying that.

 

If your only argument is the "strawman"... then.. I guess you have no argument... BASED ON THE EVIDENCE I AM DISCUSSING.

 

oh well...

 

-Mosheh Thezion

 

 

 

 

[mooeypoo]

Strawman isn't an attack, it's a type of logical fallacy and it's against our rules. I was pointing it out to show yuo why I can't answer your claims. No one can.

 

 

So far you haven' really answered any of the questions, you just lashed out back at the points I'm making.

 

Do you have any actual claim to make in this thread, or are you just interested in soapboxing and preaching?

[Mosheh Thezion]

no sir.. i did... answer ... directly... if you do not choose to see it.. that is on you.

 

i will repeat.

 

 

you said..

"All of these are physical phenomena that were explained by physics, not by the bible. In fact, for thousands of years of belief in God, mankind was OBLIVIOUS to the explanation of why these happen until proper science emerged, incrementally, explaining them."

 

I said...

 

Actually... your wrong again....(except about the sceince... science is awesome.)

The Bible mentions all of this.. the creation of matter..and its division / speration into bodies in space.

Read it..

 

Verse 2 : And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

 

Verse 3 : And God said, let there be light: and there was light. ( 5D)<br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'trebuchet ms', verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; text-align: left; ">Verse 4 : And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. (perhaps this is 6D, where the developed photons convert to something more.)

THIS EVEN FITS BIG BANG.... LIGHT... BECOMING MATTER...

 

Verse 6 : And God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. (A firmament, a mass in 7D, and 8D where that mass was then divided out into space, the ether, being a tranindental fluid, being the waters.)

 

Verse 7 : And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the water which were above the firmament: and it was so. (9D, 10D, 11D)

 

Verse 8 : And God called the firmament heaven, and the evening and the morning were the second day. (The heavens are complete, 8D threw  15D, atoms exist, and planets and the bulk of the heavenly bodies began to form…)

 

 

 

so again... YOU ARE WRONG... IT FITS VERY NEATLY... EVEN WITH BIG BANG THEORY. lets start with this... focus on this.... evidence in the heavens.... space... and Genesis.

As... justification for belief in a creator.. as the source of energy that caused this formation... / creation.

 

 

-Mosheh Thezion

Edited April 11, 2012 by Mosheh Thezion

[immortal]

Alright, so there's no real proof of the existence of God, it's just a personal preference.

 

You don't need to convince the "scientific community", I didn't ask for empirical peer-reviewed publication that was repeated successfully. At least I didn't ask for that just yet. I wanted to see if there's even a shred of proper logical evidence, which there seem to not be in your faith structure.

 

This isn't a bad thing, it's just insufficient to convince logically that God exists. All you really can say is that you believe God exists, and therefore God does, and that you take these oral traditions and scriptures and fit them to your belief system.

 

You are absolutely entitled to your personal choice.

We're also entitled to ours.

 

~mooey

 

1. The oral traditions say scientific realism is false.

2. QM says one of the assumptions of science is wrong and Bernard Espagnat is convinced that it is scientific realism that is false.

 

Both revelation and reason are pointing to the same conclusions, in fact revelation has already reached there and reason seems to follow the same path now.

 

Gnostics and the people of oral traditions were psychologists, for them Gods didn't existed in heaven, they exist in the human psyche, religion is about explaining what is the relationship of human beings with God and his numinous or supernatural world, it answers questions like Does divinity exists in humans? They knew what mind was and they also knew that the reality of empiricism was a state of mind which is echoed by quantum physicists like Bernard Espagnat himself. This is quite universal not something relevant to a particular tradition or a belief. The pleroma of God exists in each and every human being in the human psyche its like being in the Matrix of God.

 

 

In order to go by all of them, or pieces of all of them, you need to pick and choose. When I asked what's the system you use to know which piece to pick and which not to, you had no answer on that either. It's not following the logic, then.

 

Just because we chose an oral traditions doesn't mean that we have to have an affirmative belief in it, I for example though used to follow such traditions and practices am still not convinced that they are true, I doesn't want to reject them though, the way it works is that the methods should correspond to specific revelations and it should be coherent to the traditions, if Valentinus experienced the pleroma of God in the 2nd century even I have to experience the same pleroma of God in the 21st century and that should give me some real knowledge and that's how it works. Its not that there is some kind of agenda behind it to delude others to believe in God.

 

 

How is that not an intellectually honest thing to do? There's zero evidence that any of those things ever happened, there's zero evidence that any of them *can* happen, and it's more likely that many of those so called 'miracles' were either passionate reiteration of a non-miraculous event or a hallucination. We know hallucinations exist, and we know that when traditions go from generation to the next they become bigger, exaggerated and miraculous -- so why not assume this is the case here too?

 

You might disagree with it, but you can't claim this is intellectually dishonest if you have not even a shred of logical evidence or explanation that follows to the conclusion that this was miraculous, and you presented none of that in this thread.

 

Be careful who you blame as intellectually dishonest, immortal, when your claims seem to involve picking and choosing pieces of scripture and myth and oral traditions without clear systematic method, redefining morality for god vs humans and not following your own claims to their logical conclusions.

 

Maybe you should go over the definition of "intellectual dishonesty".

 

~mooey

 

My reasoning is based on revealed truths and such truths indicate that-

 

1. God's actions of good and evil has nothing to do with one's suffering.

2. Hence to conclude that God is evil based on the observation that suffering exists is invalid and inaccurate.

 

The reasoning for my re-difinition of morality between God and humans is that the pleroma of God exists in every human beings and he is responsible for all our actions including both good as well as evil actions and it is based on revealed truth.

 

If you question evidence for revealed truths then I would follow those oral traditions and worship God and I would point others in this direction if they ask for evidence. If its not compelling for others to believe in God then I can't do much about it. Those oral traditions give answers to questions like if what we call reality is a state of mind then what is mind? Science cannot answer such questions.

[seriously disabled]

I cannot convince the scientific community with these revealed truths but as to whether my beliefs are justified or not depends on the positive evidence of God.

 

And there is no such evidence, at least I fail to see it. People showed you why your belief in Gnosticism is illogical but you just refuse to listen to them.

 

If there was an all-capable God who actually loved and cared about people, many things would have been possible but unfortunately, evidence shows that this is simply not the case.

 

The seas do not part anymore to let starving and oppressed people to cross, the starving masses are not being fed by some Godly miracle and in fact, for the past 2000 years at least, no miracles have happened to save people at all.

Edited April 11, 2012 by seriously disabled

[mooeypoo]

We're not saying stop believing. We're saying stop saying it's logical to believe, or expect us to follow suit, if there's no positive evidence (or if you can't supply any)

 

I have nothing against personal belief, but there seem to be this expectation that it's so obviously true, we all should believe, and without even a shred of positive evidence for the existence of God, I don't quite see how that's even remotely relevant.

 

And to be honest, I don't see the problem with you (immortal, and Mosheh) admitting that it's a personal belief regardless of logic. Why do you need to insist it fits science, or follows science at all, or seem to insist we should jump on the bandwagon and believe too?

 

I wish I could believe, but I am simply and quite honestly not convinced, and if you want to "solve it", you need to convince me.

This won't be solved by not giving me evidence, or trying to tell me my lack of belief is responsible for the suffering of the little children, or ignoring the problem of evil. So if you can't supply proof, what is the problem in just admitting it's a personal issue, regardless of "strict rationality"?

 

 

It's okay to have a personal belief despite (or regardless of) empirical evidence (or lack thereof). Just don't claim that's not the case.

 

Isn't that fair?

 

~mooey

[immortal]

My beliefs are purely based on anecdotal evidences and I know such evidences are not accepted here and I am least bothered to call my beliefs as scientific or to convince others to believe in God. This forum is about questioning one's personal beliefs and am I not allowed even to do that?

 

We apply Occam's razor in science but we don't apply his views while discussing God.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#God_as_beside_the_razor

 

He explains: “only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover.”[44]

 

God trumps logic (Law of opposites), reason and empiricism, it is unwise to subject God to the scientific method and to conclude things about him.

[mooeypoo]

My beliefs are purely based on anecdotal evidences and I know such evidences are not accepted here and I am least bothered to call my beliefs as scientific or to convince others to believe in God. This forum is about questioning one's personal beliefs and am I not allowed even to do that?

 

Of course you're allowed, but this forum is also for others to quetion others' beliefs. We are also allowed to do that.

 

We apply Occam's razor in science but we don't apply his views while discussing God.

 

http://en.wikipedia....eside_the_razor

 

 

You don't, I do.

 

Occham's razor is a principle that was meant to help us judge competing theories about reality. If we pick and choose when to use it, we also pick and choose when to describe reality realistically and when to describe reality according to our own subjective fantasies.

 

God trumps logic (Law of opposites), reason and empiricism, it is unwise to subject God to the scientific method and to conclude things about him.

 

 

Why? And how do you expect me to join the belief if in order to believe I need to get rid of everything I know, and follow blindly without evidence?

 

I don't mean this question as a suggestion that you're trying to convince me, I'm just asking it as a sort of challenge to said belief (as in: I don't mean disrespect, but I also don't accept your reasoning, for the sake of debate).

 

Hope this makes things clearer...

 

~mooey

[seriously disabled]

God trumps logic (Law of opposites), reason and empiricism, it is unwise to subject God to the scientific method and to conclude things about him.

 

Just because science and the scientific method are incomplete doesn't mean that we should go on about believing in things that we cannot hear, see, touch or understand and I'm afraid this also includes God and other mystical beliefs like Satanism, for example and I absolutely reject Satanism.

 

God beliefs are very similar to believing in Superman, Spiderman or X-Men but we both know these beings do not really exist in reality.

 

It's like me going on to believe in power rings but I have absolutely no evidence at my disposal that power rings really exist so it would be foolish for me to believe in them.

 

Also after reading a lot about this topic in Wikipedia I have to say that Atheists, in my opinion, make much more convincing arguments against the existence of God than Theists make in favor of the existence of their God.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God

Edited April 11, 2012 by seriously disabled

[immortal]

Of course you're allowed, but this forum is also for others to quetion others' beliefs. We are also allowed to do that.

 

You don't, I do.

 

Occham's razor is a principle that was meant to help us judge competing theories about reality. If we pick and choose when to use it, we also pick and choose when to describe reality realistically and when to describe reality according to our own subjective fantasies.

 

 

Why? And how do you expect me to join the belief if in order to believe I need to get rid of everything I know, and follow blindly without evidence?

 

I don't mean this question as a suggestion that you're trying to convince me, I'm just asking it as a sort of challenge to said belief (as in: I don't mean disrespect, but I also don't accept your reasoning, for the sake of debate).

 

Hope this makes things clearer...

 

~mooey

 

Good question. It is because God is in the noumenon of things not in the phenomenon of things. Science has nothing to do with religion and religion has nothing to do with science.

 

 

Now Kant doesn't say that God is in the noumenon of things , he simply says that the noumenon is unknowable since one has to transcend one's mind to know the noumenon, the things in themselves, now this is where the Gnostics and the people of the oral traditions come into the picture, they say that one can transcend one's own mind and observe the noumenon and observe the pleroma of God in the noumenon, this is the reason they say that the empirical reality is only a state of mind because they have transcended mind itself and observed the external mind.

 

This is the reason why I think that science cannot give an objective account of reality and solve our ontological and metaphysical problems, so I am in the hope that God gives an objective account of reality and in order to transcend one's mind you need to worship him. This is the reason why it is unwise to subject God to the scientific method.

 

I am least bothered about calling this as science, it is not science, science rejects competing God hypothesis for explanations about the nature of reality.

 

However the oral traditions have the tools of faith and revelation to test such hypothesis and to bring some real knowledge. So yes, you need to get rid of everything that you know to get evidence for him.

[Arete]

However the oral traditions have the tools of faith and revelation to test such hypothesis and to bring some real knowledge. So yes, you need to get rid of everything that you know to get evidence for him.

 

The oral traditions of the indigenous Australians say that a giant snake created the earth and that droughts are caused by a greedy frog which drinks all the water in the land. Those of the Abenaki native Americans say the continents are giant turtles and corn was created by a man dragging a woman across the land by her hair, etc, etc, etc.

 

Oral traditions have not inherent "truth" simply by being oral traditions, which means you need a criteria by which to decide which you will pay attention to and which you won't.

 

In the same sense "revelations/revealed truth" is an appeal to authority: http://rationallyspe...al-fallacy.html

 

At some point you need to trust the authority which has revealed this "truth" exclusively to you.

 

There's a subjectively defined leap of faith at some point, regardless.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Arete

[Mosheh Thezion]

We're not saying stop believing. We're saying stop saying it's logical to believe, or expect us to follow suit, if there's no positive evidence (or if you can't supply any)

 

I have nothing against personal belief, but there seem to be this expectation that it's so obviously true, we all should believe, and without even a shred of positive evidence for the existence of God, I don't quite see how that's even remotely relevant.

 

And to be honest, I don't see the problem with you (immortal, and Mosheh) admitting that it's a personal belief regardless of logic. Why do you need to insist it fits science, or follows science at all, or seem to insist we should jump on the bandwagon and believe too?

 

I wish I could believe, but I am simply and quite honestly not convinced, and if you want to "solve it", you need to convince me.

This won't be solved by not giving me evidence, or trying to tell me my lack of belief is responsible for the suffering of the little children, or ignoring the problem of evil. So if you can't supply proof, what is the problem in just admitting it's a personal issue, regardless of "strict rationality"?

 

 

It's okay to have a personal belief despite (or regardless of) empirical evidence (or lack thereof). Just don't claim that's not the case.

 

Isn't that fair?

 

~mooey

 

 

 

And.. why do you... make a lot of general statements... and ignore the discussion you so strongly began with me.. directly.

 

You.. now... include me... in a general response to the group... as a means to avoid discussing what I have presented.

if... this is your tactic in argument... then it shows... you have no argument, because you refuse to discuss evidence... and facts.

 

You... say the bible does not fit... but I have shown you how it does... AND YOU IGNORE IT.

You.. at first.. did not even know the 'topic' of this thread.

 

Clearly... someone else needs to represent the atheists here, as you, do a very bad job.

 

Should I re-post what I have shown??? Or is your only winning argument to avoid the argument?

 

You say... you want to be convinced.. but when shown convincing evidence... facts.. YOU IGNORE THEM.

 

-Mosheh Thezion

[Moontanman]

And.. why do you... make a lot of general statements... and ignore the discussion you so strongly began with me.. directly.

 

You.. now... include me... in a general response to the group... as a means to avoid discussing what I have presented.

if... this is your tactic in argument... then it shows... you have no argument, because you refuse to discuss evidence... and facts.

 

You... say the bible does not fit... but I have shown you how it does... AND YOU IGNORE IT.

You.. at first.. did not even know the 'topic' of this thread.

 

Clearly... someone else needs to represent the atheists here, as you, do a very bad job.

 

Should I re-post what I have shown??? Or is your only winning argument to avoid the argument?

 

You say... you want to be convinced.. but when shown convincing evidence... facts.. YOU IGNORE THEM.

 

-Mosheh Thezion

 

 

No Mosheh Thezion, you have not shown how the bible fits with science, I have been following this discussion very closely and so far you have made that assertion several times but failed each time to show any such thing. I read your link, it was wrong and had little or no resemblance to what can be easily shown by he fossil record. You have not shown any convincing facts what so ever. if you really think you have please show us again because unless I cannot read and comprehend the English language you have not. I will be most happy to show you the error of your assertions.

 

Your interpretations of evolution are childish and totally wrong, your assertion that there are no transitional fossils is wrong, your correlation with the big bang theory and genesis is wrong. To be honest, so far i see nothing you have asserted as being right, you are so far off the mark I saws no reason to entertain your assertions at all but if you insist i would be glad to show you in detail where you are wrong, personally i thought mooey was being nice to you, I am more than willing to tell you like it is. have faith and believe if that's what you want but to assert the things you say as the truth is just... not even close enough to be wrong, silly is closer to the mark... I honestly thought you were a child trying to get attention...

[Mosheh Thezion]

No Mosheh Thezion, you have not shown how the bible fits with science, I have been following this discussion very closely and so far you have made that assertion several times but failed each time to show any such thing. I read your link, it was wrong and had little or no resemblance to what can be easily shown by he fossil record. You have not shown any convincing facts what so ever. if you really think you have please show us again because unless I cannot read and comprehend the English language you have not. I will be most happy to show you the error of your assertions.

 

Your interpretations of evolution are childish and totally wrong, your assertion that there are no transitional fossils is wrong, your correlation with the big bang theory and genesis is wrong. To be honest, so far i see nothing you have asserted as being right, you are so far off the mark I saws no reason to entertain your assertions at all but if you insist i would be glad to show you in detail where you are wrong, personally i thought mooey was being nice to you, I am more than willing to tell you like it is. have faith and believe if that's what you want but to assert the things you say as the truth is just... not even close enough to be wrong, silly is closer to the mark... I honestly thought you were a child trying to get attention...

 

Who are you?

and are you able to discuss things that Mooeypoo refuses to do?

 

You.. are correct that what i wrote in 1994, is flawed... to be sure.

but luckily god... is not based on things I have written.

you cannot use my mistakes as an argument against a god.

 

The discussion... i attempted to have with mooeypoo.... was about evidence... evidence in the heavens... and how genesis... fits guite well.

 

I suggest you respond to that... if you are going to talk to me, as that, is what I would want to talk about.

The question is asked... what justification do I have for believing in a god.???

Well.. if you are not willing to discuss that... then why are you responding for mooeypoo?

 

Should I repeat myself... or can you scan back and read it yourself?

 

I showed evidence... of super clusters.., galaxies.. and stars... and related it to genesis.

 

-Mosheh Thezion

 

 

 

 

[Moontanman]

Who are you?

 

That is quite seriously none of your business, I am a member of this forum, i understand the discussion quite well.

 

and are you able to discuss things that Mooeypoo refuses to do?

 

Yes, i am, and so is she i am quite sure, both of us as well as many others are able to do so.

 

You.. are correct that what i wrote in 1994, is flawed... to be sure.

 

Then why would you post such obviously flawed writings to support your god?

 

but luckily god... is not based on things I have written.

you cannot use my mistakes as an argument against a god.

 

I can use them to show you do not have any idea of what you are talking about.

 

The discussion... i attempted to have with mooeypoo.... was about evidence... evidence in the heavens... and how genesis... fits guite well.

 

They fit not at all with out a considerable amount of misinterpretation.

 

I suggest you respond to that... if you are going to talk to me, as that, is what I would want to talk about.

The question is asked... what justification do I have for believing in a god.???

Well.. if you are not willing to discuss that... then why are you responding for mooeypoo?

 

Any one can respond here, this is not a private forum or thread.

 

Should I repeat myself... or can you scan back and read it yourself?

 

I suggest you start at the beginning, take one thing at a time, and lets see if what you are asserting has anything what so ever to do with reality.

 

I showed evidence... of super clusters.., galaxies.. and stars... and related it to genesis.

 

Well, the devil is in the details and what you say it says is may not be what it in fact does say, who are you to say what god meant?

 

One thing Mosheh Thezion, please stop using all the special fonts and sizes to express emotions, it proves nothing and makes it more difficult to respond to your questions. i have to wade through all the extra stuff just to get to your stuff, lets keep this as simple as possible.

[Mosheh Thezion]

That is quite seriously none of your business, I am a member of this forum, i understand the discussion quite well.

 

Yes, i am, and so is she i am quite sure, both of us as well as many others are able to do so.

 

Then why would you post such obviously flawed writings to support your god?

 

I can use them to show you do not have any idea of what you are talking about.

 

They fit not at all with out a considerable amount of misinterpretation.

 

Any one can respond here, this is not a private forum or thread.

 

I suggest you start at the beginning, take one thing at a time, and lets see if what you are asserting has anything what so ever to do with reality.

 

Well, the devil is in the details and what you say it says is may not be what it in fact does say, who are you to say what god meant?

 

One thing Mosheh Thezion, please stop using all the special fonts and sizes to express emotions, it proves nothing and makes it more difficult to respond to your questions. i have to wade through all the extra stuff just to get to your stuff, lets keep this as simple as possible.

 

 

ok....

 

I wrote... showed... lines from Genesis...

 

The Bible mentions all of this.. the creation of matter..and its division / speration into bodies in space.

Read it..

 

Verse 2 : And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

 

here... we see... the earth.. was without form... literally. space was dark... and space... is described as the waters... and gods spirit.. moved upon it.. as in, added energy too.

 

Verse 3 : And God said, let there be light: and there was light.

 

here... LIGHT FORMS.... and is described in a most primitive form, as god said... words.. sounds.. being vibration.. added to space.,,, hence making light.

 

Verse 4 : And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

 

(perhaps this is 6D, where the developed photons convert to something more.)

 

 

THIS EVEN FITS BIG BANG.... LIGHT... BECOMING MATTER... sub atomic particles.

 

Verse 6 : And God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

 

So here...mass was formed... within the waters... which is space.

 

(A firmament, a mass in 7D, and 8D where that mass was then divided out into space, the ether, being a tranindental fluid, being the waters.)

 

 

Verse 7 : And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the water which were above the firmament: and it was so. (9D, 10D, 11D)

 

that mass... is then distributed across space.

 

Verse 8 : And God called the firmament heaven, and the evening and the morning were the second day.

 

the heavens.. as we know them.. deep space is complete.... with all matter in place... as we know them... galaxies.. etc.

 

(The heavens are complete, 8D threw  15D, atoms exist, and planets and the bulk of the heavenly bodies began to form…)

 

so...

 

right here... we can see that Moses... said it first... and Big Bang... copied him.

So.. now...

 

First of all... I do not base my belief in god based on this ... no...

 

I base my belief.. on the fact that superclusters... are spirally expanding clouds.. made of.. galaxies...

and galaxies.. are spirally expanding clouds of stars...

and stars... spiral in the same fashion...

and atoms.. likewise have orbitals.

 

the differences being seen as the super-clusters... would of started expanding first...

then galaxies were born... AS PROVEN BY THE HUBBLE TELESCOPE... to start as small balls... which expand outward into spiral clouds.

stars... also follow this pattern but the evidence is not in... on exactly how they form...

but..

but... based on the evidence shown.. it is likely that they start as large neutron like masses which explode with great spins.. to form the spinning clouds that form those solar systems... as is also evidenced that galaxies look... as if they did the same thing.. and the giant core masses... (some call black holes) at the center.. would seem to be that original mass that exploded to become galaxies...

 

atoms.. likewise.. have this aspect.. of electron emission...

 

the issue is then of scale.. and quality.. which appears to transcend ... change... and vary in degrees from super cluster formation to galaxy formation.. to star formation and atom formation...

it is this pattern.... of formation... clearly in evidence..

which... then suggests a dimensional progressive pattern I propose as field theory... and that field theory... of dimensional motion.. can have only one cause.. which would be the application of energy from some outside (outside our universe) source.... and that source.. for lack of a better term.. would be GOD.

 

So that.. is why I believe.. because the evidence suggests it.... and theory... makes sense of it... all of which.. suggests a source of energy..

and most importantly... that source of energy.. would of had to have a specific quality... a quality that resulted in our universe.. exactly as we know it.

 

This... has nothing to do with evidence for god... or views about god... what it is.. is justification for believing a god probably exists.. as the source of energy in creation.... and that is all.

 

and that... is significant .... very.

 

-Mosheh Thezion

Edited April 12, 2012 by Mosheh Thezion

[doG]

The Bible mentions all of this..

Do remember. The bible is just a story book written by men, not god(s). There's not one word in the whole work written by anyone named Jesus or his alleged father in the sky. The whole book is he said, "he said", nothing but hearsay. It would not be allowed as evidence in a court of law. The bible IS NOT evidence of anything. If you want to supply evidence please supply something that is measurable, testable and verifiable! Science requires nothing less.

[Mosheh Thezion]

Do remember. The bible is just a story book written by men, not god(s). There's not one word in the whole work written by anyone named Jesus or his alleged father in the sky. The whole book is he said, "he said", nothing but hearsay. It would not be allowed as evidence in a court of law. The bible IS NOT evidence of anything. If you want to supply evidence please supply something that is measurable, testable and verifiable! Science requires nothing less.

 

as such... it cannot be used to dis-prove god either.

 

and if you read... you will see... my belief is not based on the bible...

I respect the bible... because it is my view.. that Genesis... at least.. is very fitting to science and evidence... if you can get past your biases.