People who believe in god are broken

[questionposter]

Your slant on this is in the minority but more importantly it does nothing to support the reality of god or the idea that people who believe in god are broken or not. You or anyone else can interpret the idea of god or gods all you want, you can twist it to mean anything and people often have but it still ignores the fact that you are believing something extraordinary with no evidence what so ever...

I didn't say specifically that it supported the idea of god, I didn't even say I supported the idea of a flood, though the occurring of nothing more than a flood is the correct interpretation of what I implied. I don't think Noah actually had "every" animals on his boat, but it's still possible the Black Sea's water level was rising rapidly and a guy built a boat with all the species he knew of. This shows evidence that religious accounts aren't always pulled out of thin air necessarily, but rather that they are inspired from real human experiences, which could logically explain why many people connect to religion.

Edited May 7, 2012 by questionposter

[tar]

DrDNA,

 

Back in 465 you cherry picked some verses of the Koran to show that Mohammed knew and respected the Jews and Christians.

And forwarded that these words were not broken.

 

However I read him also decry the Jews for being money lenders, and charging interest, and describe this as an example of how the Jews had fallen from the way, as properly described to him by the ArchAngel of Allah. This is not the way to be if you are a believer in Allah and his messenger.

 

And Mohammed also learned from the ArchAngel (alone in the cave, mind you) that the Christians had also misunderstood Allah because Allah had no associates (family, like sons for instance) and Christ was only a Prophet like himself. (Notice in your quote he says "Son of Mary", not son of God). He was not a big fan of the "vigin birth" either.

 

Much of the first part of the Koran is a "retelling" of the Bible, as edited by the Archangel, to show both the power and wisdom of God, and usurp a bit of that power, for the use of the lowly "messenger".

 

It is really quite transparent if you read it with a critical eye.

 

Who do you think understood God better? Mohammed, or Moses, or Jesus? If you believe in God, and God's final messages were to Mohammed in the cave, why would you not believe that Jesus was merely a prophet and not the son of God?

 

Only ask this to point out that you have some discernment between what you know God means, and what others, even other Prophets, think he means.

 

And to Inow's point, you have no evidence to back up your take. You are taking it, on faith alone, no evidence required. And this is a sure way to recognize something, as "made up". Possibly, no probably very "reasonable" sounding, and you can make the story fit reality if you cherry pick what you want to see. But you ignore anything that might falsify your belief.

 

If you are blind to the truth, then you are merely attempting to rationalize your own personal vision of God. It is not a vision of God I can share with you. I am afraid this might make people that believe in God (as the Bible, New Testament, Koran depict him), broken a bit.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited May 8, 2012 by tar

[questionposter]

DrDNA,

 

Back in 465 you cherry picked some verses of the Koran to show that Mohammed knew and respected the Jews and Christians.

And forwarded that these words were not broken.

 

However I read him also decry the Jews for being money lenders, and charging interest, and describe this as an example of how the Jews had fallen from the way, as properly described to him by the ArchAngel of Allah. This is not the way to be if you are a believer in Allah and his messenger.

 

And Mohammed also learned from the ArchAngel (alone in the cave, mind you) that the Christians had also misunderstood Allah because Allah had no associates (family, like sons for instance) and Christ was only a Prophet like himself. (Notice in your quote he says "Son of Mary", not son of God). He was not a big fan of the "vigin birth" either.

 

Much of the first part of the Koran is a "retelling" of the Bible, as edited by the Archangel, to show both the power and wisdom of God, and usurp a bit of that power, for the use of the lowly "messenger".

 

It is really quite transparent if you read it with a critical eye.

 

Who do you think understood God better? Mohammed, or Moses, or Jesus? If you believe in God, and God's final messages were to Mohammed in the cave, why would you not believe that Jesus was merely a prophet and not the son of God?

 

Only ask this to point out that you have some discernment between what you know God means, and what others, even other Prophets, think he means.

 

And to Inow's point, you have no evidence to back up your take. You are taking it, on faith alone, no evidence required. And this is a sure way to recognize something, as "made up". Possibly, no probably very "reasonable" sounding, and you can make the story fit reality if you cherry pick what you want to see. But you ignore anything that might falsify your belief.

 

If you are blind to the truth, then you are merely attempting to rationalize your own personal vision of God. It is not a vision of God I can share with you. I am afraid this might make people that believe in God (as the Bible, New Testament, Koran depict him), broken a bit.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

To be fair, black holes were once "made up", and even the theory that there was a smallest constituent of matter, there still exists the possibility that at any moment god "could" show that it exists.

Edited May 8, 2012 by questionposter

[tar]

Wait...You DONT believe that Jesus is the son of God. You quoted the Hebrew words for earth/Earth. You are still waiting for the Messiah. My mistake.

 

Perhaps this "Chosen people" stuff, and this believer/non believer stuff is the most broken part of religions. Like certain of us are "special" in God's eyes.

 

As if we all do not belong to reality, equally.

 

Another, "broken" vote.

 

(how many votes do I get, Inow? I think I am currently about 16 nays and half a dozen ayes.)

Edited May 8, 2012 by tar

[questionposter]

Wait...You DONT believe that Jesus is the son of God. You quoted the Hebrew words for earth/Earth. You are still waiting for the Messiah. My mistake.

 

Perhaps this "Chosen people" stuff, and this believer/non believer stuff is the most broken part of religions. Like certain of us are "special" in God's eyes.

 

As if we all do not belong to reality, equally.

 

Another, "broken" vote.

 

(how many votes do I get, Inow? I think I am currently about 16 nays and half a dozen ayes.)

Jesus is proof in the eyes of the bible, which you don't seem to believe in, and I also believe Jesus was just a normal person, not the son of a god, I'm talking about a being that comes out and says "look at me, I can bend matter and time to my will".

Edited May 8, 2012 by questionposter

[tar]

22? (Darn)

[questionposter]

22? (Darn)

 

You should be more specific. Catch 22? Post #22? The book Catch 22 and not the phrase? What? If it is a catch 22, how so? There exists the possibility I could just one day walk through a wall. How is that a catch 22? Because that's how I see the possibility of god as something that could one day just say "hey look at me, I exist" to prove it's existence.

Edited May 8, 2012 by questionposter

[tar]

Question poster,

 

I believe in the Bible, as a work of Man. I believe in the universe, as the only reality Moses could have been talking about. Was he "right" about things, figuratively speaking, probably. Does God have a certain number and kind of people already picked out to join him in heaven? Absolutely not. Makes no kind of sense, no way, no how, and if it was true I am out of luck because I am not a Jew, don't think Jesus had the only key, and fall securely in Mohammed's nonbeliever camp. Outside of that, I was raised on the moral stories from the bible, and in that way, believe in it.

 

And figure God and I are OK with each other. No matter what. He is everything, and I am a glimpse of it.

 

Regards, TAR2

[questionposter]

Question poster,

 

I believe in the Bible, as a work of Man. I believe in the universe, as the only reality Moses could have been talking about. Was he "right" about things, figuratively speaking, probably. Does God have a certain number and kind of people already picked out to join him in heaven? Absolutely not. Makes no kind of sense, no way, no how, and if it was true I am out of luck because I am not a Jew, don't think Jesus had the only key, and fall securely in Mohammed's nonbeliever camp. Outside of that, I was raised on the moral stories from the bible, and in that way, believe in it.

 

And figure God and I are OK with each other. No matter what. He is everything, and I am a glimpse of it.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Well I don't think I said anything that is particularly against that idea, and there is still a possibility of a god, but the possibility of a Christian or Muslim or Jewish god is even smaller because of all the contradictions those assumptions can lead to. But I suppose your idea is more of a metaphorical view of god, as the entirety of nature itself?

Edited May 8, 2012 by questionposter

[ydoaPs]

 

-Genesis 7, "Noah's flood": the flood covered "the earth", the Hebrew word used in the original writing by Moses was #776 Strong's Concordance "erets", meaning "the land" (see above). The flood cover a particular region, not the whole earth.

 

This is a problem a BROKEN translation and our BROKEN interpretation of the translation. Not with the story itself.

 

Oh? Let's look:

 

2 מִכֹּ֣ל ׀ הַבְּהֵמָ֣ה הַטְּהֹורָ֗ה תִּֽקַּח־לְךָ֛ שִׁבְעָ֥ה שִׁבְעָ֖ה אִ֣ישׁ וְאִשְׁתֹּ֑ו וּמִן־הַבְּהֵמָ֡ה אֲ֠שֶׁר לֹ֣א טְהֹרָ֥ה הִ֛וא שְׁנַ֖יִם אִ֥ישׁ וְאִשְׁתֹּֽו׃

3 גַּ֣ם מֵעֹ֧וף הַשָּׁמַ֛יִם שִׁבְעָ֥ה שִׁבְעָ֖ה זָכָ֣ר וּנְקֵבָ֑ה לְחַיֹּ֥ות זֶ֖רַע עַל־פְּנֵ֥י כָל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

4 כִּי֩ לְיָמִ֨ים עֹ֜וד שִׁבְעָ֗ה אָֽנֹכִי֙ מַמְטִ֣יר עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ אַרְבָּעִ֣ים יֹ֔ום וְאַרְבָּעִ֖ים לָ֑יְלָה וּמָחִ֗יתִי אֶֽת־כָּל־הַיְקוּם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשִׂ֔יתִי מֵעַ֖ל פְּנֵ֥י הָֽאֲדָמָֽה

 

Throughout all of chapter 7, it keeps using הארץ instead of ארץ. I'll have to call in mooeypoo on this one.

[mooeypoo]

Oh? Let's look:

 

[...]

Throughout all of chapter 7, it keeps using הארץ instead of ארץ. I'll have to call in mooeypoo on this one.

 

 

The signal in the clouds was intercepted, and the moo was dispatched!

 

Anyways, so, anyone who wonders why I was dispatched, I happen to know hebrew/aramaic, and spent 12 years studying the original language of the old testament, so I can read it.

 

I was asked to try and translate the original, which is always a challenge. A translation is *never* a good one when it comes to the bible, because the meaning of the biblical verses depends a *lot* on context. Half the time even when you understand the original you need to cross-reference words and read the entire chapter (and sometimes the ones before/after) to understand the context.

 

That said, this is a relatively simple verse about Noah's plans in the arc.

 

 

2 מִכֹּ֣ל ׀ הַבְּהֵמָ֣ה הַטְּהֹורָ֗ה תִּֽקַּח־לְךָ֛ שִׁבְעָ֥ה שִׁבְעָ֖ה אִ֣ישׁ וְאִשְׁתֹּ֑ו וּמִן־הַבְּהֵמָ֡ה אֲ֠שֶׁר לֹ֣א טְהֹרָ֥ה הִ֛וא שְׁנַ֖יִם אִ֥ישׁ וְאִשְׁתֹּֽו׃

3 גַּ֣ם מֵעֹ֧וף הַשָּׁמַ֛יִם שִׁבְעָ֥ה שִׁבְעָ֖ה זָכָ֣ר וּנְקֵבָ֑ה לְחַיֹּ֥ות זֶ֖רַע עַל־פְּנֵ֥י כָל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

4 כִּי֩ לְיָמִ֨ים עֹ֜וד שִׁבְעָ֗ה אָֽנֹכִי֙ מַמְטִ֣יר עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ אַרְבָּעִ֣ים יֹ֔ום וְאַרְבָּעִ֖ים לָ֑יְלָה וּמָחִ֗יתִי אֶֽת־כָּל־הַיְקוּם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשִׂ֔יתִי מֵעַ֖ל פְּנֵ֥י הָֽאֲדָמָֽה

 

This is a good reference for hebrew/english bible text that tends to be relatively accurate: http://www.mechon-ma...p/pt/pt0107.htm

 

2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee seven and seven, each with his mate; and of the beasts that are not clean two [and two], each with his mate;

 

3 of the fowl also of the air, seven and seven, male and female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I blot out from off the face of the earth.'

 

The only caviat I can give here is that on the 4th verse, the English version says "every living substance" while the original hebrew/aramaic uses the word for "universe". As in, "the entire universe". It makes no distinction about living.

In fact, God quite clearly states that he will erase the entire universe that he created.

 

The distinction about 'living' substances is in the translation only.

 

 

 

~mooey

 

There's another issue I wanted to particularly answer to regarding the word "Eretz".

 

b. For example:

-God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot's daughters said "there's not a man in the earth #776 Strong's Concordance (erets) to come in unto us" (Genesis 19:31) Not every man in the world was killed ... only those in the area of the destruction.

 

-Exodus 9:33 "the rain was not poured upon the earth" #776 Strong's Concordance (erets)... Of course we understand it is just speaking about a certain area in Egypt.

 

-Genesis 7, "Noah's flood": the flood covered "the earth", the Hebrew word used in the original writing by Moses was #776 Strong's Concordance "erets", meaning "the land" (see above). The flood cover a particular region, not the whole earth.

 

This is a problem a BROKEN translation and our BROKEN interpretation of the translation. Not with the story itself.

 

 

The word "Eretz" is used in Genesis 1:1 "רֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ"

(1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.)

 

Unless we want to claim that God created only a segment of a land, the word means the entire bulk of the earth.

 

Your example about Sodom and Gomorrah is a bit odd, DrDNA. The quote from Genesis 19:31 is this:

לא וַתֹּאמֶר הַבְּכִירָה אֶל-הַצְּעִירָה, אָבִינוּ זָקֵן; וְאִישׁ אֵין בָּאָרֶץ לָבוֹא עָלֵינוּ, כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל-הָאָרֶץ. 31

 

And the first-born said unto the younger: 'Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth.

 

This can either mean "a land" (limited to the city) or "the entire world". Either the older daughter tells her younger sister "omg girl, our dad's old and there's no one in this country that can come to us!" or she says "omg, girl, our dad's old and there's no one in the entire WORLD to come to us!".

 

Either way works, which means that this example is bad to measure context. In fact, the second translation (which fits Genesis 1:1 and the Noah flood "universe" context) seems a bit more "dramatic" which fits the context of the entire chapter.

 

And that is regardless of the fact that God states clearly that he intends to destroy *the universe* that he created during the flood.

 

"Universe" seems to include the earth (our lovely earth which he created in genesis), the heavens, the light, etc etc. His universe. Everything.

 

And then water drops onto the earth. *The* Earth. It's a bit of a twist to insist that the meaning is "part" of the land, when this word is consistently used to describe God's creation of the earth versus the heavens.

 

Another example is the ending of the flood story in Genesis 8:22

כב עֹד, כָּל-יְמֵי הָאָרֶץ: זֶרַע וְקָצִיר וְקֹר וָחֹם וְקַיִץ וָחֹרֶף, וְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה--לֹא יִשְׁבֹּתוּ.

22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.'

God regrets the flood (which is a separate issue, but nevermind that now) and states that as long as the earth remains (Eretz) then summer/winter day/night will always continue. Those don't happen on a single land, they happen everywhere.

 

It seems all context of the word "Eretz" -- from the creation of the world to the flood to the end of the flood -- are consistently the same meaning: THE Earth. It's everything on the ground, not just one particular land.

 

"Eretz" vs "Shamayim"

Earth vs Sky/Heavens.

 

The distinction and meaning seem quite clear.

 

~mooey

[tar]

Thank you Mooey for the translations.

 

Not unlikely the Bible can be used, by an individual, or a group, to reflect upon the universe, together...and arrive upon a mutual understanding, of a mutual thing...that makes sense.

 

Hard though, to do this, without also coming up with an understanding that would be mutually holdable by everybody else.

 

Here, seems to be the rub.

 

Question Poster,

 

22? I didn't mean anything by it. It was my guess at the number of votes Inow would allow me on the thread topic. I was alluding to the fact that I probably have used up my allotment.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Villain]

I don't understand your point. Can you please elaborate or elucidate or clarify somehow, please?

 

I'm saying that at some point all systems require faith and you might as well say that if faith can be used to validate any system then it can be used to validate unicorns. I have previously stated that religion is not based on no evidence, it is just not based on the system of science.

 

 

Anyways, so, anyone who wonders why I was dispatched, I happen to know hebrew/aramaic, and spent 12 years studying the original language of the old testament, so I can read it.

 

I was asked to try and translate the original, which is always a challenge. A translation is *never* a good one when it comes to the bible, because the meaning of the biblical verses depends a *lot* on context. Half the time even when you understand the original you need to cross-reference words and read the entire chapter (and sometimes the ones before/after) to understand the context.

 

~mooey

 

I think this is good advice for anyone wanting to study the Bible or any historical text from a neutral-bias. We often forget that it was not written in our mother tongues and that translation from any language doesn't always capture the complete meaning.

 

 

[questionposter]

I'm saying that at some point all systems require faith and you might as well say that if faith can be used to validate any system then it can be used to validate unicorns. I have previously stated that religion is not based on no evidence, it is just not based on the system of science.

 

The only things that really require faith are axioms, but axioms can still have logic built off of them and can still be used to make contradictory conclusions. Faith also does not substitute a logical sequence of steps.

Edited May 8, 2012 by questionposter

[mooeypoo]

The only things that really require faith are axioms, but axioms can still have logic built off of them and can still be used to make contradictory conclusions. Faith also does not substitute a logical sequence of steps.

 

The question isn't if you can find logic, the question is how hard you need to work to make the logic work for your chosen answer.

 

At some point, if it requires extra particular interpretation and extra particular interpretations again and again, logic might dictate it may be the less logical answer.

 

Don't you agree? Otherwise, why not just admitting it has nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with faith...

 

~mooey

[iNow]

I'm saying that at some point all systems require faith and you might as well say that if faith can be used to validate any system then it can be used to validate unicorns. I have previously stated that religion is not based on no evidence, it is just not based on the system of science.

I've heard this same position from others like you in the past. I find it lacking, TBH.

 

In short, you're trying to suggest that this supernatural extraordinary being (god or gods) actually exists, and that faith alone is enough to support this conjecture. You then follow by trying to equate that "faith" in the extraordinary claim of god(s) being a sufficient reason to accept it as true with the idea of how we conditionally accept some propositions in science as true (faith in the validity of a scientific axiom or premise). You are conflating two different usages of the term faith (see examples earlier in the thread about the term "foot").

 

They are not the same, and it's a flawed argument for you to suggest they are. The axioms in science can be tested and discarded. They are not based on faith alone as is the concept of god(s). Scientific axioms instead are, as I stated earlier, accepted conditionally... Reviewed by others, refined, or discarded if shown fallacious. That is not faith, it is conditional acceptance. Conditional acceptance is NOT the same as using faith alone as your best evidence of the existence of deities or leprechauns or unicorns, no matter how many times you continue to assert the contrary.

Edited May 8, 2012 by iNow

[mooeypoo]

I'm saying that at some point all systems require faith and you might as well say that if faith can be used to validate any system then it can be used to validate unicorns. I have previously stated that religion is not based on no evidence, it is just not based on the system of science.

 

The problem with this is that the word and concept of "Evidence" is a scientific one. What you're trying to do is use science while not using science. That doesn't work.

 

If you don't want to use the system of science, why use terminology used and defined by the scientific methodology? Use another word or another terminology, it may reduce the amount of dissent from science-minded people who use "evidence" and "facts" according to the methodology they were created for.

 

I don't quite understand the duality here. On one hand it seems like many religious people claim "it requires faith" and on the other insist discussing such faith (leap or not) in the context of science... Why not just admitting it doesn't require evidence, just faith, and be done with it. Everyone has a right to believe and have faith in whatever they want, so why insist on using science not in the way it was created to be used to insist the faith is scientific, and then reject science when it doesn't work...

 

 

~mooey

[Villain]

I've heard this same position from others like you in the past. I find it lacking, TBH.

 

In short, you're trying to suggest that this supernatural extraordinary being (god or gods) actually exists, and that faith alone is enough to support this conjecture. You then follow by trying to equate that "faith" in the extraordinary claim of god(s) being a sufficient reason to accept it as true with the idea of how we conditionally accept some propositions in science as true (faith in the validity of a scientific axiom or premise). You are conflating two different usages of the term faith (see examples earlier in the thread about the term "foot").

 

They are not the same, and it's a flawed argument for you to suggest they are. The axioms in science can be tested and discarded. They are not based on faith alone as is the concept of god(s). Scientific axioms instead are, as I stated earlier, accepted conditionally... Reviewed by others, refined, or discarded if shown fallacious. That is not faith, it is conditional acceptance. Conditional acceptance is NOT the same as using faith alone as your best evidence of the existence of deities or leprechauns or unicorns, no matter how many times you continue to assert the contrary.

 

Ok, so you have been able to differentiate between scientific faith and unicorn faith. Yet you keep asserting that faith in unicorns and faith that a god exists and is knowable are the same thing. Religious faith is not based purely on thought experiments, the faith that a Christian has that the Bible is not a falsified set of books (or whatever over religion for that matter) is not the same as the proposition that a teapot is on the other side of the moon. The Bible offers the user a way of concluding as to whether or not the statements it makes are plausible. It offers a moral code which the reader can question....so on and so on.

 

Science has the luxury of studying objects that surround us and obviously the evidence for such things is extremely high. History doesn't have that option, but that doesn't mean that history didn't occur, the further back you go the less 'fact' there is. Evolution gets this pass from the science community (and I am not here to debate it), it has a lot of holes that people accept, but God must adhere to man and present Themselves on a platter in order for us to even consider a creator.

 

Which leaves us with human motivation (that is why I have highlighted this during the thread). If God exists then the individual becomes responsible to a higher power. The fat cat can no longer pretend that he has earned his wealth, the individual can no longer lay claim to it's own brilliance. The problem with God existing is that everything that man and society has given value to becomes worthless. The individual becomes responsible to something other than society.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Villain

[mooeypoo]

Even historians use the word "Evidence" in its proper scientific context, though. They don't use it to describe something that has no evidence.

 

It's true that historians make inferences, but they do that based on evidence, and the evidence are defined according to the methodology of science.

 

For that matter, you won't find a history lesson about the evidence of Harry Potter, because there is no evidence for harry potter existence. You will find history papers that discuss the conclusion of what happened in Pompei based on the evidence that was found.

 

 

The evidence for the existence of god is, so far, not evidence. Not in the context physics, biology and chemistry uses it ("empirical" science) and not in the context that history uses it (used to infer the conclusion).

 

Evidence does not lose its meaning in different systems. It has the same meaning. If you mean to say something other than evidence, use another word.

 

 

~mooey

[zapatos]

Even historians use the word "Evidence" in its proper scientific context, though. They don't use it to describe something that has no evidence.

 

It's true that historians make inferences, but they do that based on evidence, and the evidence are defined according to the methodology of science.

 

For that matter, you won't find a history lesson about the evidence of Harry Potter, because there is no evidence for harry potter existence. You will find history papers that discuss the conclusion of what happened in Pompei based on the evidence that was found.

 

 

The evidence for the existence of god is, so far, not evidence. Not in the context physics, biology and chemistry uses it ("empirical" science) and not in the context that history uses it (used to infer the conclusion).

 

Evidence does not lose its meaning in different systems. It has the same meaning. If you mean to say something other than evidence, use another word.

 

 

~mooey

What property does 'scientific evidence' have that evidence of God does not have?

[mooeypoo]

What property does 'scientific evidence' have that evidence of God does not have?

 

Empirical existence.

[zapatos]

Empirical existence.

Sorry, I'm not quite clear on that. Are you saying scientific evidence is derived from experiment or observation?

Edited May 8, 2012 by zapatos

[mooeypoo]

Sorry, I'm not quite clear on that. Are you saying scientific evidence is derived from expreiment or observation?

 

Scientific evidence is empirical, yes. There is more to the scientific method than just that, but when you say "evidence", you mean actual *testable* repeatable evidence that can be confirmed by multiple people in multiple institutions multiple times.

 

Even in things like history, you don't just go by a single piece of text. Evidence in history is an archeological discovery, for instance. A repeated mention in various cultures of the same effect might serve as indirect evidence which can add to the validity of a certain theory, but not serve as independent support.

 

Also, in things like history, we often say "We believe things were X" or "evidence suggest X" and not "This is what happened" because we tend to not really know. Religious arguments don't quite do that, though with the same rigor. "Here's evidence!" doesn't work if you don't actually HAVE the evidence.

 

 

Even "indirect evidence" is first and foremost an empirical evidence (observation, experimental result, etc, that is testable, repeatable, etc) -- the only difference is the way it aids the conclusion. Either it directly leads there or it's indirect. Indirect evidence are usually considered to not be a "full support" of a theory, but rather an extended support, so you wouldn't base your conclusion strictly on the indirect evidence. And if you do, then the hypothesis or theory is considered less strong (and more debated) than if you base it on direct evidence.

 

There seems to be no direct, indirect or any form of evidence to the existence of God. There are logical arguments and theological explanations, philosophical descriptions and references, but no actual evidence.

 

I'm not saying that means God doesn't exist, I'm saying that means there's no evidence, and it irks me a bit to hear arguments that there is evidence, it's just not of the scientific kind.

 

If it's not of the scientific kind, it's not evidence, because evidence comes from the world of science terminology and methodology.

 

Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want. We all probably have a bunch of beliefs that are unsupported by evidence. It seems to be part of the human condition, and I believe that as long as it's done with respect (and without insisting others should follow same beliefs) it's perfectly fine to have them.

 

My sole problem is with the insistence to use scientific terminology when it suits the argument and then reject it when it stops working.

 

~mooey

[Villain]

Scientific evidence is empirical, yes. There is more to the scientific method than just that, but when you say "evidence", you mean actual *testable* repeatable evidence that can be confirmed by multiple people in multiple institutions multiple times.

 

Even in things like history, you don't just go by a single piece of text. Evidence in history is an archeological discovery, for instance. A repeated mention in various cultures of the same effect might serve as indirect evidence which can add to the validity of a certain theory, but not serve as independent support.

 

Also, in things like history, we often say "We believe things were X" or "evidence suggest X" and not "This is what happened" because we tend to not really know. Religious arguments don't quite do that, though with the same rigor. "Here's evidence!" doesn't work if you don't actually HAVE the evidence.

 

 

Even "indirect evidence" is first and foremost an empirical evidence (observation, experimental result, etc, that is testable, repeatable, etc) -- the only difference is the way it aids the conclusion. Either it directly leads there or it's indirect. Indirect evidence are usually considered to not be a "full support" of a theory, but rather an extended support, so you wouldn't base your conclusion strictly on the indirect evidence. And if you do, then the hypothesis or theory is considered less strong (and more debated) than if you base it on direct evidence.

 

There seems to be no direct, indirect or any form of evidence to the existence of God. There are logical arguments and theological explanations, philosophical descriptions and references, but no actual evidence.

 

I'm not saying that means God doesn't exist, I'm saying that means there's no evidence, and it irks me a bit to hear arguments that there is evidence, it's just not of the scientific kind.

 

If it's not of the scientific kind, it's not evidence, because evidence comes from the world of science terminology and methodology.

 

Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want. We all probably have a bunch of beliefs that are unsupported by evidence. It seems to be part of the human condition, and I believe that as long as it's done with respect (and without insisting others should follow same beliefs) it's perfectly fine to have them.

 

My sole problem is with the insistence to use scientific terminology when it suits the argument and then reject it when it stops working.

 

~mooey

 

 

I have never claimed that the evidence was scientific evidence, the term evidence does not only apply to science, evidence in the context of law can be a statement from a witness, as an example.

[questionposter]

The question isn't if you can find logic, the question is how hard you need to work to make the logic work for your chosen answer.

 

At some point, if it requires extra particular interpretation and extra particular interpretations again and again, logic might dictate it may be the less logical answer.

 

Don't you agree? Otherwise, why not just admitting it has nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with faith...

 

~mooey

 

I don't know if I agree, there isn't really a way to quantify logic, so how can you actually conclude that something is "more" logical without a biased opinion?