Searching for GOD...

[jeremyp]

The only thing that makes my belief unjustified is if there isn't a God.

No. Your belief is also unjustified if the actual god is not the Christian god.

[Nearly Sane]

No. Your belief is also unjustified if the actual god is not the Christian god.

It's unjustified surely if there is no good reason for the belief rather than whether it's true. Someone who wins the lottery is not justified on thinking that their numbers are correct before the draw, unless they have fixed it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's unjustified surely if there is no good reason for the belief rather than whether it's true. Someone who wins the lottery is not justified on thinking that their numbers are correct before the draw, unless they have fixed it.

How is anyone who has suspended the principle of sufficient reason qualified to make a claim of "No good reason".

[Nearly Sane]

How is anyone who has suspended the principle of sufficient reason qualified to make a claim of "No good reason".

Because you are confused about absolutes and relatives, probably because you don't define things properly.

ETA - you're also completely misunderstanding the principle of sufficient reason with the idea of a justified pr unjustified belief. They are not connected.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The only thing that makes my belief unjustified is if there isn't a God. And since you are accusing me of unjustified belief, you are saying there is no God.

No – your belief is unjustified because you haven’t justified it; you’ve just asserted it. That it may nonetheless be true just as a matter of dumb luck doesn’t change that. The same is true for my belief in leprechauns.

But since this about your belief. What makes your belief justified?

My belief (ie, that your justifications for your claims are absent or invalid) is justified because your justifications are either absent (ie, you don’t produce them at all) or invalid (ie, they’re demonstrably false – at which point you always run away).   

[Maeght]

So are you saying that encountering Christ is a collective experience?

Not necessarily but it can be. people also interpret things based on the cultures they have been exposed to - so you could say that it is in that case.

Did no one conclude that the wreckage could have been military? So the artifacts, the soldier, and the tape were ‘real’ or convincing, but the alien aspect was conjured by the minds of some but not all.

They remembered being threatened by an armed soldier (who pointed a gun at them). There was no gun.

I can’t say any more than that really but the nearest thing I can offer is Derren Brown’s conversion of an audience member to Christianity. I understand the person “converted” realised later she had been manipulated and directed mentally. What went unsaid though was where Brown was directing the audience mentally given the elephant in the room. Namely that Brown is a professional television illusionist, so we have to question what of it was staged.I’m still not clear what your understanding of the term vision is.

I expect you could be if you tried.

[Maeght]

I think you failed to see the elephant in the room namely Maeght and Outrider want us to compare God with things that have been disproved.

The more important it is the less trivial it is.

No I don't. I am posting about personal testimonies and pointing out that these may not just be taken as being true because we know that we can easily fool ourselves into believing things which we find out are not true.

[Outrider]

Well firstly, Outrider places these, expanding on Maeght in the category of things that are not true so presumably they have been disproved. Is God in that category? I don’t think so.

They've been shown not to work. God has been shown not to work - innumerable things once put down to divine whim now have purely physical explanations. Religious claims like interventionalist prayer have been shown not to work. That's not 'been proven to be not true', they are assertions about how reality works, not truth claims - and, in that sense, they have been shown not to work to exactly the same extent that God has been shown not to work. And, yet, people still believe, and still make the claims.

None of them seem to address the fundamental as say, theism or materialistic naturalism.

God doesn't 'address' the fundamental, it's an excuse to stop asking questions, and quite often it's wrapped in an attempt at authoritarian social restriction, too.

Since they are trivial This looks like a deliberate attempt to trivialise God by association.

Not by association, by comparison.

O.

[Spud]

Spud,
 

Being apparently "aware of" a dream the next morning doesn’t imply that the dream predicted the event for the reasons I set out. There isn’t an agreed explanation for the phenomenon, but competing hypotheses suggest that that some combination of selection bias (the brain picks the memories that fit and ignores those that don’t), confirmation bias, approximation bias etc. is likely at play. Show me an example of someone dreaming the winning lottery numbers, writing it down when they woke up and then the prediction coming true and perhaps we’d have something to talk about.     

I'm not saying the phenomena you mention don't exist, but I don't think we can assume that what she said happened wasn't accurate.
There is also the strange feeling she experienced telling her not to go to see her Dad. That was proved to be correct, and I guess we would call it instinct, but that she says she prayed about that feeling and that her dream came between praying and speaking to the police, indicates that although she didn't write the dream down she mentally documented the sequence in which things happened.

[Maeght]

I'm not saying the phenomena you mention don't exist, but I don't think we can assume that what she said happened wasn't accurate.
There is also the strange feeling she experienced telling her not to go to see her Dad. That was proved to be correct, and I guess we would call it instinct, but that she says she prayed about that feeling and that her dream came between praying and speaking to the police, indicates that although she didn't write the dream down she mentally documented the sequence in which things happened.

And you can't assume it was. That's the point.

[jeremyp]

I'm not saying the phenomena you mention don't exist, but I don't think we can assume that what she said happened wasn't accurate.

The explanation doesn't have to be "God warned her off". It's a sad phenomenon that, occasionally, Muslim parents have had their children murdered (usually female children) for not toeing the line. She might haver had an unconscious fear of that happening that manifested through a dream, and if it was over her Christianity, it is not unreasonable that the manifestation might involve Christian imagery.

You have got one anecdote here. Where was God's warning for all the honour killings that he didn't prevent? Why are there even Muslims? If Christianity is the "correct" religion, why doesn't GHod appear to all Muslims in dreams to persuade them to convert?

There is also the strange feeling she experienced telling her not to go to see her Dad.

So, even before the dream, she had her suspicions.

Why are you even bringing this up as a thing?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

I'm not saying the phenomena you mention don't exist, but I don't think we can assume that what she said happened wasn't accurate.

That’s akin to saying “but I don't think we can assume that gravity is the warping of spacetime rather than invisible pixies holding stuff down with thin strings”.

If by “assume” you mean something like “deduce on the basis of reason and evidence” then we can “assume” that.
 

There is also the strange feeling she experienced telling her not to go to see her Dad. That was proved to be correct, and I guess we would call it instinct, but that she says she prayed about that feeling and that her dream came between praying and speaking to the police, indicates that although she didn't write the dream down she mentally documented the sequence in which things happened.

“Strange feelings” aren’t evidence for anything (other than having strange feelings), and what you’re describing is exactly the context in which people are likely to have dreams that process their waking experience and then confuse them with predictions.   

[Alan Burns]

What's the difference between a cult and a mainstream religion? Is it just the popularity of the latter?

An informative link on the subject:
https://www.samwoolfe.com/2013/05/differences-between-cult-and-religion.html

extracted from this link:
This brings me to the next factor which distinguishes a cult from a religion – the cult has at its centre a messianic, brainwashing, coercive and highly charismatic leader.

Religions do have leaders – such as popes, priests, rabbis and imams – but these leaders have a different personality compared to cult leaders such as David Koresh (Branch Davidians), Jim Jones (Peoples Temple) and Marshall Applewhite (Heaven’s Gate). Mainstream religious leaders, for the most part, do not abuse, coerce and control their religious population in order to further their own agenda. They are there to transmit the teachings of that particular religion – they are working for the religion, whereas cult leaders stand as the source of truth and therefore have much more power to influence their subjects, usually at their demise.

[Nearly Sane]

An informative link on the subject:
https://www.samwoolfe.com/2013/05/differences-between-cult-and-religion.html

extracted from this link:
This brings me to the next factor which distinguishes a cult from a religion – the cult has at its centre a messianic, brainwashing, coercive and highly charismatic leader.

Religions do have leaders – such as popes, priests, rabbis and imams – but these leaders have a different personality compared to cult leaders such as David Koresh (Branch Davidians), Jim Jones (Peoples Temple) and Marshall Applewhite (Heaven’s Gate). Mainstream religious leaders, for the most part, do not abuse, coerce and control their religious population in order to further their own agenda. They are there to transmit the teachings of that particular religion – they are working for the religion, whereas cult leaders stand as the source of truth and therefore have much more power to influence their subjects, usually at their demise.

First of all that appears to be random opinion but surely even if we take it as correct a mainstream religion is merely a cult that continues after its leader such as Mohammed or Jesus is dead.

[Alan Burns]

First of all that appears to be random opinion but surely even if we take it as correct a mainstream religion is merely a cult that continues after its leader such as Mohammed or Jesus is dead.

But Jesus lives!

[jeremyp]

But Jesus lives!

In that case, Christianity is still a cult by your definition, since their Messianic charismatic leader is allegedly still alive.

[Nearly Sane]

But Jesus lives!

So it is a cult.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They've been shown not to work.

Yes, reiki and homeopathy are pseudoscientific and make claims that are susceptible to science and have failed comprehensively. I would not put God and Religion in that category, They do not have to stand on science.

God has been shown not to work - innumerable things once put down to divine whim now have purely physical explanations.

Ah , this would be the “ Religion is failed science line” To which we can ask “ Which bit of science is it which fails religion? What science that I do not have but you have fails God? Are you not mistaking atheism for science? Are you not mistaking Scientism for science?

claims like interventionalist prayer have been shown not to work.

How were they supposed to work? What criteria did they fail?

That's not 'been proven to be not true', they are assertions about how reality works, not truth claims - and, in that sense, they have been shown not to work to exactly the same extent that God has been shown not to work. And, yet, people still believe, and still make the claims.

In Christianity there is contention over the virgin birth and resurrection, but, using your criterion of how successful science has been and will be. Science, but not technology, has declared that life is due to the interaction of molecules and well , molecules can be made to interact.

God doesn't 'address' the fundamental, it's an excuse to stop asking questions,

No, Suspending the principle of sufficient reason because it suits, stops questions, . Atheist, philosopher and Stud Bertrand Russell’s claim that “The universe just is and there’s an end to it” stops questions.

[Outrider]

Yes, reiki and homeopathy are pseudoscientific and make claims that are susceptible to science and have failed comprehensively. I would not put God and Religion in that category

Religion has made many, many claims about how the world works that have been shown to be in error. You might not put God and Religion into the same category as 'Healing energies and Reiki' or 'Water memory and Homeopathy', but given the apparent similarities that I've shown you really need to explain why in order for anyone to give what you're saying any consideration.

Ah , this would be the “ Religion is failed science line”

No, this is 'Religion is a failed enterprise', and highlighting some areas where the scientific method has shown some of the specific ways in which it has failed.

To which we can ask “ Which bit of science is it which fails religion?

Even if we thought that religion was a failed science, it wouldn't be that science was failing religion, it would be that religion is failing us and accuracy.

What science that I do not have but you have fails God?

Do you mean 'falsifies', rather than fails? Science falsifies numerous religious claims, leaving an ever reducing clutch of spiritual woo and reality deniers.

Are you not mistaking atheism for science?

No. Science, as in the application of scientific methods of enquiry showing that things like the diversity of life, healing from disease, the spread of species across the planet, earthquakes and the like are not the product of divine intervention, but physical processes with no apparent guidance or overall direction, in contradiction to various religious claims across history.

The atheist method, from what I recall, is something to do with which sauce to serve with roast baby depending on your wine of choice, but I'm not a drinker so I was never bothered.

Are you not mistaking Scientism for science?

Again, no. Aren't you mistaking ad hominems for making an actual argument?

How were they supposed to work?

They were supposed to lead to some demonstrable intervention, the clue is in the name.

What criteria did they fail?

They failed to demonstrate any measurable intervention.

That's not 'been proven to be not true', they are assertions about how reality works, not truth claims - and, in that sense, they have been shown not to work to exactly the same extent that God has been shown not to work.

Exactly. A claim is made. That claim is tested. Reality demonstrates that the claim is not realised. Repeatedly. On innumerable different religious propositions, from gayness causing floods to praying for the sick making them well and beyond.

In Christianity there is contention over the virgin birth and resurrection, but, using your criterion of how successful science has been and will be.

I get you favour religion over science, but can you please at least stick to the conventions of the language - this isn't even a sentence.

Science, but not technology, has declared that life is due to the interaction of molecules and well , molecules can be made to interact.

What? 'Science', by which I'm presuming you mean the collective understanding of the scientific community, hasn't really come to a firm conclusion on a definition for life, yet, let alone defined where it comes from. Science is still content to say 'I don't know' sometimes.

No, Suspending the principle of sufficient reason because it suits, stops questions

That would be the 'sufficient reason' that decides if everything we see has a cause, and all of those causes had a cause, there must be a special circumstance that doesn't because the Church wants your money baby Jesus. Or is the classical 'Sufficient Reason' ("The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason, cause, or ground.") which leads you somehow to the formulation "Everything must have a cause, therefore God is the uncaused caused". I don't need a background in science to spot that might have a flaw.

Atheist, philosopher and Stud Bertrand Russell’s claim that “The universe just is and there’s an end to it” stops questions.

And yet neither science nor philosophy have stopped since that proclamation; indeed, even Russell didn't stop at that proclamation. Religion, however, hasn't really offered anything new in a couple of thousand years, just different flavours of the same old baseless claims of 'something beyond, trust me bro, all that stuff that I can't actually show you could be yours...'

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Religion has made many, many claims about how the world works that have been shown to be in error. You might not put God and Religion into the same category as 'Healing energies and Reiki' or 'Water memory and Homeopathy', but given the apparent similarities that I've shown you really need to explain why in order for anyone to give what you're saying any consideration.

No, this is 'Religion is a failed enterprise', and highlighting some areas where the scientific method has shown some of the specific ways in which it has failed.

Even if we thought that religion was a failed science, it wouldn't be that science was failing religion, it would be that religion is failing us and accuracy.

Do you mean 'falsifies', rather than fails? Science falsifies numerous religious claims, leaving an ever reducing clutch of spiritual woo and reality deniers.

No. Science, as in the application of scientific methods of enquiry showing that things like the diversity of life, healing from disease, the spread of species across the planet, earthquakes and the like are not the product of divine intervention, but physical processes with no apparent guidance or overall direction, in contradiction to various religious claims across history.

The atheist method, from what I recall, is something to do with which sauce to serve with roast baby depending on your wine of choice, but I'm not a drinker so I was never bothered.

Again, no. Aren't you mistaking ad hominems for making an actual argument?

They were supposed to lead to some demonstrable intervention, the clue is in the name.

They failed to demonstrate any measurable intervention.

Exactly. A claim is made. That claim is tested. Reality demonstrates that the claim is not realised. Repeatedly. On innumerable different religious propositions, from gayness causing floods to praying for the sick making them well and beyond.

I get you favour religion over science, but can you please at least stick to the conventions of the language - this isn't even a sentence.

What? 'Science', by which I'm presuming you mean the collective understanding of the scientific community, hasn't really come to a firm conclusion on a definition for life, yet, let alone defined where it comes from. Science is still content to say 'I don't know' sometimes.

That would be the 'sufficient reason' that decides if everything we see has a cause, and all of those causes had a cause, there must be a special circumstance that doesn't because the Church wants your money baby Jesus. Or is the classical 'Sufficient Reason' ("The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason, cause, or ground.") which leads you somehow to the formulation "Everything must have a cause, therefore God is the uncaused caused". I don't need a background in science to spot that might have a flaw.

And yet neither science nor philosophy have stopped since that proclamation; indeed, even Russell didn't stop at that proclamation. Religion, however, hasn't really offered anything new in a couple of thousand years, just different flavours of the same old baseless claims of 'something beyond, trust me bro, all that stuff that I can't actually show you could be yours...'

O.

Whoever undercuts sufficient reason is no friend of science Outrider.

[Nearly Sane]

Whoever undercuts sufficient reason is no friend of science Outrider.

So since your position is that the principle of sufficient reason does mot apply to your god, you are declaring, by this logic, that your god and you are not friends to science.

[Outrider]

Whoever undercuts sufficient reason is no friend of science Outrider.

That would be you, you understand.

The principle is that everything has a cause. Your entire argument is that there needs to be something that doesn't have a cause, and despite the fact that it breaks the underlying principle that you're citing, and the fact that you have no evidentiary basis for your claim, somehow it's me who's #nofriendofscience...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Religion has made many, many claims about how the world works that have been shown to be in error. /You might not put God and Religion into the same category as 'Healing energies and Reiki' or 'Water memory and Homeopathy', but given the apparent similarities that I've shown you really need to explain why in order for anyone to give what you're saying any consideration.

No, this is 'Religion is a failed enterprise', and highlighting some areas where the scientific method has shown some of the specific ways in which it has failed.

Perhaps you should read some Stephen Jay Gould on the separation of Magisteria
 So not being confident that religion equals science. You’ve shifted the goalposts to claim that religion is a failed enterprise. So how has it failed as an enterprise then?

No. Science, as in the application of scientific methods of enquiry showing that things like the diversity of life, healing from disease, the spread of species across the planet, earthquakes and the like are not the product of divine intervention, but physical processes with no apparent guidance or overall direction, in contradiction to various religious claims across history.

The application of science has also given us global warming, resource depletion, social media, cyberterrorism and the H bomb and the decimation of species. According to a BBC documentary by the esteemed Will Self, Scientists looking for a way to warn humanity of the dangers of radioactive waste over succesive civilisations is to use the vehicle of religion because of their proven durability. Hardly then, scientific support for religion as a failed enterprise.

I get you favour religion over science,

I see no conflict. I can have both

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That would be you, you understand.

The principle is that everything has a cause. Your entire argument is that there needs to be something that doesn't have a cause, and despite the fact that it breaks the underlying principle that you're citing, and the fact that you have no evidentiary basis for your claim, somehow it's me who's #nofriendofscience...

O.

Sufficient reason works on the principle that there is a reason or an explanation for every entity whether it be external to it or intrinsic. It is what propels scientific enquiry and is suspended when the consequences of following the argument are too upsetting to contemplate.

[Outrider]

Perhaps you should read some Stephen Jay Gould on the separation of Magisteria

Why should I presume there is a different ruleset for this one particular set of ideas? If it has an effect on the world, that effect can be measured and assessed. If it doesn't have an effect on the world then it doesn't matter.

So not being confident that religion equals science.

I never suggested that it was like science, you suggested I'd suggested that and I corrected you.

You’ve shifted the goalposts to claim that religion is a failed enterprise.

No, I've spelt it out for you more simply because it appears I overestimated your capacity.

So how has it failed as an enterprise then?

Religion tried to explain death, life, the diversity of species, the diversity of cultures, earthquakes, rain, thunder, sunshine, the universe, disease, mental health, and cheese (in no particular order) and pretty much got all of them wrong. All it has left is claims about things that can't even be demonstrated to be real, let alone for any given religion to actually have the right idea about them.

The application of science has also given us global warming, resource depletion, social media, cyberterrorism and the H bomb and the decimation of species.

Arguably the application of the fruits of science's labour, but perhaps a irrelevant distinction. Whether the fruits of science are intrinsically good or not is a different thing, but on the evidence of that you can't say that science hasn't achieved anything.

According to a BBC documentary by the esteemed Will Self, Scientists looking for a way to warn humanity of the dangers of radioactive waste over succesive civilisations is to use the vehicle of religion because of their proven durability.

Except that innumerable historians pointed out the vast swathe of evidence that shows how stories shift in meaning over time, through translation, cultural interpretation, deliberate reinterpretation and just human fallibility.

Hardly then, scientific support for religion as a failed enterprise.

Because of the pronouncements of the esteemed Nobel winning scientist Will Self? Oh, wait, no, the OTHER Will Self. Will Self of 'I was smacked up on Tony Blair's plane' fame... Well that's shown me, you've got Will Self being wrong on your side, whatever will I do now?

I see no conflict. I can have both

I think you need to look closer.

Sufficient reason works on the principle that there is a reason or an explanation for every entity whether it be external to it or intrinsic. It is what propels scientific enquiry and is suspended when the consequences of following the argument are too upsetting to contemplate.

Which doesn't explain why you suddenly decide you need something without a cause in the otherwise perfectly identifiable chain of events. Your reason needs a reason, because of Sufficient Reason, and at the moment that reason appears to be special pleading.

O.