Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

But what has that got to do with looking for a unifying theory of everything?
You seem to be saying that' science is OK looking for it but will be wrong when it has found it.

Rather, that it is keeping an open mind that distinguishes the two.  Religion claims truth, door closed, end of story; science bears in mind that the search is never ending, we probably never will know everything but we keep on enquiring because that is what we do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Rather, that it is keeping an open mind that distinguishes the two.  Religion claims truth, door closed, end of story; science bears in mind that the search is never ending, we probably never will know everything but we keep on enquiring because that is what we do.

No, religion gives God or a purpose or shape to life. We need to get to know/submit/love/worship etc God more. It seems that God wants the universe to be accessed using other faculties.
You seem therefore to have confused religion with science.

What part of science talks about a search that is never ending? That is quasi mystical.

[Stranger]

The atheist of the type they all purport to be would have politely stated why he is atheist, Simple non belief, and retired, Instead they have left a belief footprint which would make any pantomime giant peoud.

Good grief Vlad - how often do you need this explained to you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good grief Vlad - how often do you need this explained to you?

Shouldn't you have retired from the board months ago?

[torridon]

No, religion gives God or a purpose or shape to life. We need to get to know/submit/love/worship etc God more. It seems that God wants the universe to be accessed using other faculties.
You seem therefore to have confused religion with science.

What part of science talks about a search that is never ending? That is quasi mystical.

That suggests to me that we invent god in order to satisfy our need for purpose; whereas we do science to satisfy our craving for knowledge.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That suggests to me that we invent god in order to satisfy our need for purpose; whereas we do science to satisfy our craving for knowledge.

But a need could be real. I need food for example, antitheists need to stop talking bollocks. These are real needs. I did mention shape too. Science yields a shape to existence as a procession and interaction. Therefore to disallow ''shape'' to any area of existence is another piece of special pleading.

[Stranger]

Shouldn't you have retired from the board months ago?

No. What bizarre misunderstanding are you labouring under today?

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

I'd probably agree with Polkinghorne, in so far as our search for answers derives from a human need to make sense of the world.  The difference is that science keeps an open mind and does not make grand claims to have found that unifying theory of everything.

Quite, which is why scientists keep doing it. The problem with finding a grand unifying theory of everything is a philosophical rather than a scientific one though I think. Even if science one day found a causal explanation for everything it observes, how would we ever know that there's not something else just beyond its purview that would change everything?

That's the paradox of religion I find - it starts with knowing nothing (ie, guessing) and leaps straight to claims of knowing everything (all those "sures" and "certains").   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Therefore to disallow ''shape'' to any area of existence is another piece of special pleading.

The stupidity is deep on this one. Anyone is "allowed" anything they like. What they don't get to have is special privileges for their guessing about objective facts, however strongly held their personal beliefs. And that's the only "special pleading" here.   

[floo]

I wonder what AB thinks of the reports, which suggest Pope Frankie gave the impression he didn't think hell existed in the Biblical sense of the word? One does have to hand it to Frankie, he is a breath of fresh air compared to his predecessors. If J-P1 had lived I think he too would have made a big difference. There are suggestions his death was not due to natural causes, so maybe Frankie had better watch his back.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

torri,

Quite, which is why scientists keep doing it. The problem with finding a grand unifying theory of everything is a philosophical rather than a scientific one though I think. Even if science one day found a causal explanation for everything it observes, how would we ever know that there's not something else just beyond its purview that would change everything?

That's the paradox of religion I find - it starts with knowing nothing (ie, guessing) and leaps straight to claims of knowing everything (all those "sures" and "certains").   

Reasonable post although you seem to go on about religion having a paradox when you've just described a paradox in science.

having said that though can you justify that religion starts knowing nothing.... as for your claim THAT RELIGION leaps straight to knowing everything....That is a straw man caricature of religion. You will I guarantee knock it later for talking about mystery etc.

[ekim]

To take your last sentence. you have none at all. All you have is trust based upon what you feel, and their behaviour towards you. At least however, you can verify objectively that the person exists.


So, if you are in a relationship with God, what evidence do you have that God loves you. None at all. You can't even verify that this entity actually exists. All you have is trust based upon what you feel.

There is another way of looking at your questions which are inevitably based upon subject 'I' and relationship with object 'God', an object which appears to be largely undefined, and this is the way of the mystic in most religions (and I would include Jesus as a Judaic mystic).  The way of the mystic tends to be about transcending the subject/object based mental state which is driving this topic's discussion.  What arises cannot be described in language suitable for logical analysis and so an approximating analogical language is used to try to convey it to others.  Words like 'love' take on the sense of 'one-ness' or union rather than the two-ness of subject/object, soul/God.  There is no real way of communication but there are a variety of methods which can be used to invoke or evoke it.  The main obstacle is the ego/self which has its own agenda for self preservation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Reasonable post although you seem to go on about religion having a paradox when you've just described a paradox in science.

A paradox Vlad is unable to indentify it seems.

...having said that though can you justify that religion starts knowing nothing.... as for your claim THAT RELIGION leaps straight to knowing everything....That is a straw man caricature of religion. You will I guarantee knock it later for talking about mystery etc.

Oh dear. Everything starts with knowing nothing. That's the default. The difference between reasoned, evidence-based science and religion is that the former has methods probabilistically at least for knowing something.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The stupidity is deep on this one. Anyone is "allowed" anything they like. What they don't get to have is special privileges for their guessing about objective facts, however strongly held their personal beliefs. And that's the only "special pleading" here.   

Sounds like another straw man argument to me.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sounds like another straw man argument to me.

The irony is deep on this one (and it's not a straw man either).

[Stranger]

Sounds like another straw man argument to me.

If it is you'll be able to tell us how to distinguish the claims of religion about objective reality from guessing. As a bonus of course, we will then have a method of finding out which religion has the right (or at least most probable) answers! I can hardly wait...

[Robbie]

I wonder what AB thinks of the reports, which suggest Pope Frankie gave the impression he didn't think hell existed in the Biblical sense of the word? One does have to hand it to Frankie, he is a breath of fresh air compared to his predecessors. If J-P1 had lived I think he too would have made a big difference. There are suggestions his death was not due to natural causes, so maybe Frankie had better watch his back.

I read about Pope Francis's views on Hell last night; what he says is in keeping with most current Christian thought.

It shows that belief is not static. We learn new things all the time. Only diehard traditionalists are afraid to move forward.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If it is you'll be able to tell us how to distinguish the claims of religion about objective reality from guessing. As a bonus of course, we will then have a method of finding out which religion has the right (or at least most probable) answers! I can hardly wait...

There is no intrinsic reliable argument that one cannot have encountered god. This is not true for having encountered strings, superstrings, the multiverse etc, simulated universe or the other big answers and theories of everything usually and openly and admittedly associated with guessing.

Again religion claims God first and foremost and isn't science.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I read about Pope Francis's views on Hell last night; what he says is in keeping with most current Christian thought.

It shows that belief is not static. We learn new things all the time. Only diehard traditionalists are afraid to move forward.

Yes he did come across as annhiliationist. Like John Stott.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Equating Knowing God with being handed a theory of everything is a piece of black antitheist propaganda designed to keep the antitheist discipleship in order.

[Stranger]

There is no intrinsic reliable argument that one cannot have encountered god.

Or leprechauns, or ghosts, or fairies, or aliens, or...

You also seem to have forgotten that there are many, many different gods that are often mutually contradictory.

This is not true for having encountered strings, superstrings, the multiverse etc, simulated universe or the other big answers and theories of everything usually and openly and admittedly associated with guessing.

Well some of those are attempts to construct testable hypotheses, others are guesses, some with more credibility than others. Most of them at least have some sort of starting point in what is known. Not sure what the point of bringing any of them up was, though...

Again religion claims God first and foremost and isn't science.

You appear to be equating religion with monotheism but  in the middle of this car crash it hardly seems to matter.

So, in summery, you don't have any way to distinguish religious claims about objective reality from guessing and your accusation of a straw man was false.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Or leprechauns, or ghosts, or fairies, or aliens, or...

You also seem to have forgotten that there are many, many different gods that are often mutually contradictory.

Well some of those are attempts to construct testable hypotheses, others are guesses, some with more credibility than others. Most of them at least have some sort of starting point in what is known. Not sure what the point of bringing any of them up was, though...

You appear to be equating religion with monotheism but  in the middle of this car crash it hardly seems to matter.

So, in summery, you don't have any way to distinguish religious claims about objective reality from guessing and your accusation of a straw man was false.

I do. I know when I am guessing and when i've experienced something and I guess that is true for most people.
Your use of the word guess..... given the context and the personnel who use it... are you using the term as a backhanded Jibe? Either that or you are making definitional and category errors.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Or leprechauns, or ghosts, or fairies, or aliens, or...

You also seem to have forgotten that there are many, many different gods that are often mutually contradictory.

Being mutually contradictory lends no support though to the argument that if there is conflict within religion then that invalidates religion. That is just special pleading.

[torridon]

I do. I know when I am guessing and when i've experienced something and I guess that is true for most people.
Your use of the word guess..... given the context and the personnel who use it... are you using the term as a backhanded Jibe? Either that or you are making definitional and category errors.

I don't think you can extrapolate from your personal experience into something that is 'objectively' true for all.  Even within the realms of religious experience, there is diversity, not unanimity, as William James shows.

[Stranger]

I do. I know when I am guessing and when i've experienced something and I guess that is true for most people.

I don't doubt that you experienced something but the problem is that if we take everybody's personal experience and their own interpretation of it as equally real and credible, we'd end up believing all sorts of contradictory things - including countless different versions of god(s).

How could we decide who to believe?

Your use of the word guess..... given the context and the personnel who use it... are you using the term as a backhanded Jibe? Either that or you are making definitional and category errors.

Translation?