Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Msg 3237 At least science can prove, test, retest, discover, improve, be robust, universally bloody important and is capable of change if new info is discovered and is fascinating and wonderful. Faith does non of these things IE faith answers nothing. Faith is a bit twee and "gets in the way"

To be fair, scientists should be explaining that they rarely prove anything in a philosophical sense. All scientific explanations are provisional; the best supported, the scientific 'laws' are always open to discredit from contrary evidence.

They are, by far and away, our most successful attempts to explain how the universe works, but very, very little in there is definitively proven. Even the phenomena we witness about which we hypothesis in order to conduct the experiments which feed into the body of evidence that is 'science' are only provisionally understood.

Faith, by contrast, pretends to offer reasons why things happen in the absence of any strong reason to think there's a reason at all, and not just natural causes all the way down...

O.

By natural causes do you mean ''anything but anything which a religious person could point to and draw correctness from''?

Has natural causes all the way down been proven? is natural causes all the way down based on mere extrapolation or is it from a desire for that to be so?

Natural causes all the way down is a bit suspect since there is the presence of intelligence and even darwinianly unevolved intelligence and because we have no way of knowing whether the naturalist narrative is ever comprehensive.

[Alan Burns]

#3235, #3236 and #3238.
Excellent posts. If only AB (and others) would remove their metaphorical blinkers before reading them!

Susan, 
It is not me who is wearing the blinkers

It is, Alan, but they stop you from seeing it! 

Len, Susan

I can assure you that I am not blinkered to the arguments and reasoning put up on this forum.  I fully understand where they are coming from, but they pale into insignificance compared to the profound reality of God's existence which has developed from my faith.  It is not just wishful thinking or speculation, but a certainty which is difficult to put into words (though I have tried !)

[Outrider]

By natural causes do you mean ''anything but anything which a religious person could point to and draw correctness from''?

The point about natural causes, and science's foundation in philosophical naturalism, is that the data should be the same regardless of who measures it. On that basis, no, it should be something that anyone, religious or otherwise, can point to and draw correctness from. Some of them choose not to, of course, some of them try to twist selective parts of the data to fit their pre-conceived agenda (and that's some on both sides), but the tools are there to identify and correct that.

Has natural causes all the way down been proven? is natural causes all the way down based on mere extrapolation or is it from a desire for that to be so?

Natural causes all the way down is the presumption of philosophical naturalism - it's less 'proven' than the rest of science that rests upon it. What it is, partially, is validated by the continued success of science at explaining phenomena in a coherent way, and then from those explanation hypothesising on possible consequences which can then be validated or disproven by further experiments. The longer and broader the body of evidence behind our 'scientific knowledge' becomes, the better we can trust the presumption of natural causes all the way.

Natural causes all the way down is a bit suspect since there is the presence of intelligence and even darwinianly unevolved intelligence and because we have no way of knowing whether the naturalist narrative is ever comprehensive.

I'm sorry, I've had three runs at that, and I'm still not sure I get what you're saying - if, as I think it might be, you're suggesting that there is evidence of an underlying intelligence 'behind' the universe then I'm afraid I don't see it, and neither does the majority of the scientific community. All the various intelligent design arguments have been thoroughly debunked.

It's true, we don't at the moment know whether our understanding of the naturalist narrative is complete, and we don't know that we'll ever know, or even if it's possible for humanity to completely understand.

However, those grey areas beyond our understanding, the 'gaps' have been shrinking for a long time, and there's no immediate reason to think that they'll stop any time soon.

O.

[Shaker]

Please don't tell me you expect Vlad to understand even a fraction of that.

[Outrider]

Please don't tell me you expect Vlad to understand even a fraction of that.

I don't doubt that many of the religious people on here posting do so more in hope than expectation that I'll understand what they're trying to convey, but if we don't keep trying we all lose.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Natural causes all the way down is the presumption of philosophical naturalism - it's less 'proven' than the rest of science that rests upon it. What it is, partially, is validated by the continued success of science at explaining phenomena in a coherent way, and then from those explanation hypothesising on possible consequences which can then be validated or disproven by further experiments. The longer and broader the body of evidence behind our 'scientific knowledge' becomes, the better we can trust the presumption of natural causes all the way.

This has the same issues as those claiming supernatural events. We only have a methodology that works on the basis of natural assumptions. It could easily be that the famed leprechauns are the cause of absolutely everything - but we have no way of establishing it. We have no way to recognise a natural event as opposed to a supernatural event. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

By natural causes do you mean ''anything but anything which a religious person could point to and draw correctness from''?

The point about natural causes, and science's foundation in philosophical naturalism

Whooaa there boy.......Science is methodological naturalism, historically it has only some foundation in philosophical naturalism but many roots in theism. Philosophical materialism is drifted into from methodological naturalism through philosophical indiscipline.
Science can be carried out without philosophical naturalism.

The idea that everyone doing science somehow gets in touch with their inner philosophical naturalist is complete mystical nonsense of the philosophical naturalist variety. We are unfortunate enough at present to have you, Shaker and I suppose we could include L James on this board peddling the myth.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

By natural causes do you mean ''anything but anything which a religious person could point to and draw correctness from''?

The point about natural causes, and science's foundation in philosophical naturalism, is that the data should be the same regardless of who measures it. On that basis, no, it should be something that anyone, religious or otherwise, can point to and draw correctness from. Some of them choose not to, of course, some of them try to twist selective parts of the data to fit their pre-conceived agenda (and that's some on both sides), but the tools are there to identify and correct that.

Has natural causes all the way down been proven? is natural causes all the way down based on mere extrapolation or is it from a desire for that to be so?

Natural causes all the way down is the presumption of philosophical naturalism - it's less 'proven' than the rest of science that rests upon it. What it is, partially, is validated by the continued success of science at explaining phenomena in a coherent way, and then from those explanation hypothesising on possible consequences which can then be validated or disproven by further experiments. The longer and broader the body of evidence behind our 'scientific knowledge' becomes, the better we can trust the presumption of natural causes all the way.

Natural causes all the way down is a bit suspect since there is the presence of intelligence and even darwinianly unevolved intelligence and because we have no way of knowing whether the naturalist narrative is ever comprehensive.

I'm sorry, I've had three runs at that, and I'm still not sure I get what you're saying - if, as I think it might be, you're suggesting that there is evidence of an underlying intelligence 'behind' the universe then I'm afraid I don't see it, and neither does the majority of the scientific community. All the various intelligent design arguments have been thoroughly debunked.

It's true, we don't at the moment know whether our understanding of the naturalist narrative is complete, and we don't know that we'll ever know, or even if it's possible for humanity to completely understand.

However, those grey areas beyond our understanding, the 'gaps' have been shrinking for a long time, and there's no immediate reason to think that they'll stop any time soon.

O.

Whooa there boy.....who mentioned intelligent design?......although I admit Greene, Rees and others accommodate the possibility of simulated universes.

A universe which follows a set of laws but has some measure of aseity is no deal breaker for many theists.

 

[Leonard James]

The idea that everyone doing science somehow gets in touch with their inner philosophical naturalist is complete mystical nonsense of the philosophical naturalist variety. We are unfortunate enough at present to have you, Shaker and I suppose we could include L James on this board peddling the myth.

As usual, your post is full of pretentious, idiotic expressions conveying nothing. What is the myth I am accused of peddling?

In English, please, not your usual daft, pseudo-intellectual language.

[Shaker]

I can assure you

It has been my experience over a long period of time that you're unable to assure anyone of anything, Alan.

It is not just wishful thinking or speculation

How do you know that it is not?

[Leonard James]

Len, Susan

I can assure you that I am not blinkered to the arguments and reasoning put up on this forum.

I'm afraid your posts demonstrate quite the opposite, Alan.

I fully understand where they are coming from, but they pale into insignificance compared to the profound reality of God's existence which has developed from my faith.

Not reality, Alan, just a belief that you have spent many years nurturing and repeating (self indoctrination). It is, however, only a belief, not a reality.

It is not just wishful thinking or speculation, but a certainty which is difficult to put into words (though I have tried !)

The problem is that there are no words that are able to change a belief into a reality. That can only be done with demonstrative evidence. Just resign yourself to the fact. 

[ippy]

#3235, #3236 and #3238.
Excellent posts. If only AB (and others) would remove their metaphorical blinkers before reading them!

Susan, 
It is not me who is wearing the blinkers

It is, Alan, but they stop you from seeing it! 

Len, Susan

I can assure you that I am not blinkered to the arguments and reasoning put up on this forum.  I fully understand where they are coming from, but they pale into insignificance compared to the profound reality of God's existence which has developed from my faith.  It is not just wishful thinking or speculation, but a certainty which is difficult to put into words (though I have tried !)

I can help you there Alan where your paragraph finishes with; "a certainty which is difficult to put into words (though I have tried !)", the words you're looking for or need are and of course it would be for you to use the following words:

(My certainty is locked deeply within my vivid imagination, it's so vivid I've convinced myself it's a certainty), repeat that to yourself over and over for quite a few times and there you are Alan that's all you need to say.

It'll come home to you eventually Alan you keep on trying.   

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The idea that everyone doing science somehow gets in touch with their inner philosophical naturalist is complete mystical nonsense of the philosophical naturalist variety. We are unfortunate enough at present to have you, Shaker and I suppose we could include L James on this board peddling the myth.

As usual, your post is full of pretentious, idiotic expressions conveying nothing. What is the myth I am accused of peddling?

In English, please, not your usual daft, pseudo-intellectual language.

Every post where you mention that science has done away with religion and is superior to religion or that religion is somehow failed science you peddle a myth.

[Leonard James]

The idea that everyone doing science somehow gets in touch with their inner philosophical naturalist is complete mystical nonsense of the philosophical naturalist variety. We are unfortunate enough at present to have you, Shaker and I suppose we could include L James on this board peddling the myth.

As usual, your post is full of pretentious, idiotic expressions conveying nothing. What is the myth I am accused of peddling?

In English, please, not your usual daft, pseudo-intellectual language.

Every post where you mention that science has done away with religion and is superior to religion or that religion is somehow failed science you peddle a myth.

OIC! Straw man, then. I have never been so daft as to claim that science is done away with religion. That would need science to get rid of gullibility, a human trait that is here to stay.

And science is definitely superior to religion in that it is evidence based. Religion is based on god myths.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The idea that everyone doing science somehow gets in touch with their inner philosophical naturalist is complete mystical nonsense of the philosophical naturalist variety. We are unfortunate enough at present to have you, Shaker and I suppose we could include L James on this board peddling the myth.

As usual, your post is full of pretentious, idiotic expressions conveying nothing. What is the myth I am accused of peddling?

In English, please, not your usual daft, pseudo-intellectual language.

Every post where you mention that science has done away with religion and is superior to religion or that religion is somehow failed science you peddle a myth.

OIC! Straw man, then. I have never been so daft as to claim that science is done away with religion. That would need science to get rid of gullibility, a human trait that is here to stay.

And science is definitely superior to religion in that it is evidence based. Religion is based on god myths.

The superiority or virtue of being evidence based is merely an unevidenced opinion. Bad luck.

[Leonard James]

The superiority or virtue of being evidence based is merely an unevidenced opinion.

Piffle! Evidence for something will always be stronger than no evidence.

Bad luck.

Fortunately, luck is something your claims need, not mine! 

[Alan Burns]

As my dear friend Becky fights for her life, I am struck by just how precious our lives are, and how we take so much for granted.  Every day we live is a gift, indeed every minute of our existence is a gift from God who made it all possible, yet some of us try to convince ourselves that God had nothing to do with it and everthing came out of nothing.  Our Creator must find it so sad that His wonderful gift of life is taken for granted by so many.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The superiority or virtue of being evidence based is merely an unevidenced opinion.

Piffle! Evidence for something will always be stronger than no evidence.

Bad luck.

Fortunately, luck is something your claims need, not mine! 

But your ''evidenced based'' claims are I think the same as mine since they are mere empirical facts. However your RE message board guff is in fact what is known as opinion with no empirical evidence for them.

E.g. What is the empirical evidence that empirical evidence is superior to a well constructed and disciplined philosophical argument or a mathematical proof for that matter?

Please state answer to this question in next post.

[Shaker]

As my dear friend Becky fights for her life, I am struck by just how precious our lives are, and how we take so much for granted.

No quibble from me there.

Every day we live is a gift, indeed every minute of our existence is a gift from God who made it all possible, yet some of us try to convince ourselves that God had nothing to do with it and everthing came out of nothing. Our Creator must find it so sad that His wonderful gift of life is taken for granted by so many.

Since we're not on the Prayer thread, where I wouldn't dream of intruding, I take it that I can thoroughly fillet this diabetes-inducing saccharine wibble and show it up for the desperate, self-serving guff that it is.

Is Becky's condition, and the torment her family find themselves in at present, a gift from God as well, Alan? I try not to be ungrateful but I have to say that I've had some shitty gifts in my time, but nothing quite as faecal as that. Since you purport to be a believer, you are faced with a choice: either the god you claim to believe in micromanages absolutely everything in the universe constantly, in which case it is ultimately responsible (a) for your friend's condition and (b) the grief of her family and friends at said condition, or you believe in a god who is possibly well-intentioned but powerless to prevent this sort of pointless suffering - a sort of divine Tim-Nice-But-Dim, an amiable duffer - means well, tries hard, but is a bit shit really.

I suggest neither options redounds to your credit particularly.

[Alan Burns]

Since you purport to be a believer, you are faced with a choice: either the god you claim to believe in micromanages absolutely everything in the universe constantly, in which case it is ultimately responsible (a) for your friend's condition and (b) the grief of her family and friends at said condition, or you believe in a god who is possibly well-intentioned but powerless to prevent this sort of pointless suffering - a sort of divine Tim-Nice-But-Dim, an amiable duffer - means well, tries hard, but is a bit shit really.

My own perception is that reality falls somewhere in between the two extremes you quote.  I do not have the knowledge to be able to say why things are as they are, but I have to accept reality as it is.  My faith tells me that we are loved by God, who brought us into existence, but in the world we live in there are many things happening which are not part of God's will, and He can help us through it if we keep faith and put our trust in Him.

[ippy]

Since you purport to be a believer, you are faced with a choice: either the god you claim to believe in micromanages absolutely everything in the universe constantly, in which case it is ultimately responsible (a) for your friend's condition and (b) the grief of her family and friends at said condition, or you believe in a god who is possibly well-intentioned but powerless to prevent this sort of pointless suffering - a sort of divine Tim-Nice-But-Dim, an amiable duffer - means well, tries hard, but is a bit shit really.

My own perception is that reality falls somewhere in between the two extremes you quote.  I do not have the knowledge to be able to say why things are as they are, but I have to accept reality as it is.  My faith tells me that we are loved by God, who brought us into existence, but in the world we live in there are many things happening which are not part of God's will, and He can help us through it if we keep faith and put our trust in Him.

It'd make as much sense to say my left ear lobe tells me etc etc, but never mind my ear lobe will see me through all kinds of adversity as long as I keep in with my ear lobe.

Nothing like a really good sense of imagination.

ippy

[savillerow]

Msg 3276 AB Arrogant crap. What you claim is hopefully where the end of religion starts. When people start voicing more against this sort of tosh being banded about is a day worth hanging on for. When people start openly not respecting religious folks for their beliefs in all walks of life, with a bit of luck a massive penny will drop into their brain boxes. Its got to come. Its got to.

[SusanDoris]

Msg 3276 AB Arrogant crap. What you claim is hopefully where the end of religion starts. When people start voicing more against this sort of tosh being banded about is a day worth hanging on for. When people start openly not respecting religious folks for their beliefs in all walks of life, with a bit of luck a massive penny will drop into their brain boxes. Its got to come. Its got to.

#3276 = another of AB's wading-through-treacle posts. What a pity he will not read your clear and concise response the way he should,. 

[torridon]

Since you purport to be a believer, you are faced with a choice: either the god you claim to believe in micromanages absolutely everything in the universe constantly, in which case it is ultimately responsible (a) for your friend's condition and (b) the grief of her family and friends at said condition, or you believe in a god who is possibly well-intentioned but powerless to prevent this sort of pointless suffering - a sort of divine Tim-Nice-But-Dim, an amiable duffer - means well, tries hard, but is a bit shit really.

My own perception is that reality falls somewhere in between the two extremes you quote.  I do not have the knowledge to be able to say why things are as they are, but I have to accept reality as it is.  My faith tells me that we are loved by God, who brought us into existence, but in the world we live in there are many things happening which are not part of God's will, and He can help us through it if we keep faith and put our trust in Him.

'Accepting reality as it is' can be a bigger thing than just accepting reality as it appears to you. You don't have some monopoly on truth or some exclusive access to hidden knowledge.  To build a bigger understanding of reality requires factoring in the experience of other people. We are all different, we each have our unique set of quirks, tastes, fears and so forth.  I shudder at the thought of picking up house spiders, whereas others are happy to handle them; some people are afraid of heights, whereas others are happy up ladders and climbing mountains; many people find inner peace and joy through religious practice, whereas others do not and I can just about understand how this particular characteristic can set the preconditions under which people are able to accept narratives about life that are manifestly improbable to people like me.  You've developed your own philosophy of life, one that chimes well with your deeper characteristics, but there is no one size fits all formula for a happy life.

[ekim]

there is no one size fits all formula for a happy life

Yep. Maybe many paths to one destination under different names, call it happy life, joyful state of being, paradise etc.