I have a question I would like to ask the faith based community. I am the founder of the Church of Reality. The Church of Reality is a religion based on making a solemn personal commitment to the pursuit of the understanding of reality the way it really is. I am committed to believe in anything that actually exists. Science is my Bible. In my life the desire to understand reality is sacred to me. Reality comes first in my life and my moral values are based on the axiom the the pursuit of the understanding of the universe, the way it really is, has value. To me – Reality and Truth are the same thing.
My questions to the Faith Based Community is, assuming that the above statements are my sincerely held religious beliefs, will God reveal himself to someone like me? Can one find God on the path of the pursuit of the understanding of reality? Is it possible for me to find God in the real world where God is observable by non-believers? If not – why not? Can a Realist find God without having to give up putting reality first? Or – is belief without evidence a requirement?
I want to start off stating that i am an Athiest, and i read this with a chuckle, knowing full well that this is a troll post, and this will bring the onslaught of troll comments.
If it were possible for a God to just *poof* in front of you and fill you full of holy light, and make you a believer then he would be doing it all the time.
I’ll lead in with a quote from Richard Dawkins (the anti-christ himself):
“Well, science is not religion and it doesn’t just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion’s virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops. Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas? The other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other hand, required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of scientists.
One reason I receive the comment about science being a religion is because I believe in the fact of evolution. I even believe in it with passionate conviction. To some, this may superficially look like faith. But the evidence that makes me believe in evolution is not only overwhelmingly strong; it is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it. Anyone can study the same evidence that I have and presumably come to the same conclusion. But if you have a belief that is based solely on faith, I can’t examine your reasons. You can retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can’t reach you.”
Joseph, with technicolor overcoat or not, you misperceive our good moderators post. While poorly grounded, I believe it to be honestly stated…. not a troll… which is different from the responses it may receive.
Mark – are you a Man of Science, or Devo? Or are you just asking a poorly framed question? Maybe, this will help. As more than an atheist, in fact an anti-theist, as in: “If God were proven to exist, I would be against him morally and politically regardless of the power he exerted against me” I have answered in part what would happen if I had a personally relgiously relevatory experience: I would exercise my god given freedom to think and judge independently for myself…. and do so.
But the other part of the issue would be: “What did I just experience?” You know… like the very often reported bright light and clouds and long dead family members so many people report on near death/back from death experiences. What was that? REALITY?…. or something different?
I say: something different. Brain chemistry, implanted/developed cultural memes and so forth. Nothing extraordinary, nothing spiritual. All completely CONCRETE, evidence based, scientifically explainable/falsifiable/and reproducible.
Let me ask you Mark: if a unicorn revealed itself to you, what would you do/think/conclude? Do you think the facts/stories/myths/legends/reports we have available to us today will be accurate to describe what you will experience when meeting a unicorn? Or will that unicorn have to be experienced by yourself with your current understandings?
If god exists, then you are experiencing him now. All your questions are answerable. Jump in.
Silly Hoomans.
God reveals himself to you thru his Word, the Bible. The Holy inspired writ was written by 40 different men, over a span of about 1600 years. It is amazing that there isn’t one contradiction.
Ones faith is strengthened by the reading of God’s Word. There is also the obedience factor, which most don’t want to do.
God’s not going to talk to you (audibly hear him) or appear (reveal himself) to you. He has left us his Word to read, learn, and obey. He wont make you, but has told you the outcome if you don’t.
It’s up to you.
As far as wanting evidence, look all around you at God’s great creation. Do you really believe, all this exists by luck?
Good example of swimming in the shallows. Obviously, the only thing you have read about the bible is that there are no contradictions. Now, why don’t you read something other than that single statement?
YOU KNOW: like google (Bible Contradictions) = 3.8 Million hits.
But not a single contradiction.
Because, you know, thats what I believe.
And so can you.
Higghawker:
I find it difficult to come to the same conclusion that there are no contradictions in the Bible, as I have read them myself, but attribute it to the fact that the Bible was written by men and not by God and is subject to their point of view and problems. Additionally, after these men wrote their words, they were translated, sometimes through multiple languages, before it was written in English and is then subject to my own interpretation.
That said, obedience to one’s concept and reality of God is absolutely necessary if one is to find Him. And beyond that, I also find strength and inspiration as I read the Bible. The message is the message.
You selectively read the bible just as everyone else does.
Proof that human morality has its source outside of religion.
Thanks be to god for that. Stone you for any disagreements.
Bobbo,
“Proof that human morality has its source outside of religion.”
I don’t even think science is going to agree with this statement?
Well, thats a very definitionally based response.
You probably can cite more examples than I can of Old vs New Testament God of vengence vs god of love type issues?
We don’t sell our daughters into slavery and we don’t stone people who eat shrimp. Why Not? Because “something” within us tells us that would be a wrong/immoral thing to do.
I only say that something comes from outside the Bible/Religion. YOU hook that to science. ….. But …. given that SCIENCE is the only way to understand the world, and Darwin has much to teach us about anything dealing with hoomans …. yes …. the morality of not stoning your offspring probably is the result of successful breeding over time.
ain’t reality a bitch?
bobbo, the pragmatic, please enlightened us with one of your hypothesis or prediction and it’s experimental proof of what you are saying. After all, you being the man of science, you can prove what you are saying, correct?
Don’t forget, science is all about the Q.E.D (quod erat demonstrandum)!
Nate,
2 Tim. 3: 16 -17 tells us that “ALL Scripture is inspired by God.”
This is essential for one’s belief in His Word. How can one build their faith if they think what they are reading may be wrong?
2 Peter 1:20-21 also provides us with insight into God’s inspired Word.
God has given us all free will, and allows everyone to make up their own mind. It’s the greatness of God. Make your choice.
I am God. Don’t believe me? Ask me.
This is your line of reasoning. A book written by men claims that something is true. Your only proof is the book. Do you have some proof somewhere else that you aren’t sharing?
I don’t know why people of faith say the reason they believe it is because of faith. There is nothing wrong with that.
But to purposely intertwine faith and fact is wrong.
Science deals with facts.
Religion deals with faith.
I don’t know why people of faith say the reason they believe it is because of faith.
Should be
I don’t know why people of faith don’t just say the reason they believe it is because of faith.
There are plenty of contradictions. Read “God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible” by CJ Werleman to get some insight.
Really – no contradictions?
How do you reconcile “Thou shall not kill and the flood of Noah?
I am reminded of the book/movie “A River Runs Through It” where Norm McLean remembers the words of his father, a pastor, who informed him that the words of God were captured in the rocks found in the river, and that if you listened long enough you might just hear them.
I am an engineer, a scientist, and a believer. Sometimes I find myself more of an engineer and a scientist than a believer, but then something comes along to remind me that we know so little about anything, that in reality we are stumbling around in the darkness, attempting to capture light and sometimes succeeding. When I get out and immerse myself in a world devoid of humanity, I am able to see evidence of more that we can hope to understand as humanity in my lifetime. Whether this is evidence of God or just ignorance, it can (and has been, endlessly) be debated.
However, I do not deign to declare for you what/who your God is to be. As you observe the real world, reality, and truth, you may come across what to you is the higher knowledge or intelligence that informs your world view. This may be or may become the God that you seek providing you with the center for your world view.
Christianity has always sought to put this center on one person and has sought to nail this down to one set of ideals. As Jesus said to Peter, “Upon this rock I will build my church,” meaning the church was to be built upon one immovable object. But just because Christianity has focused faith on one person, does not mean that a scientist could not put faith in a hypothesis. Many scientists prefer faith in a hypothesis, since it can be tested. However, Christians also argue that their faith in Christ is also tested and for them it is proven. One advantage of science, however, is that a properly designed experiment will provide the same results to different parties, while tests of faith often yield startlingly different results.
For what it’s worth, I find God in science every day. This is my faith and my world view. Though, as a believer, I am inclined to “read between the lines,” sometimes in conflict with my training. I also don’t find that my religion can truly conflict with the science that I see proven. The only thing that is disproven is the dogma that some people associate with God.
Care to provide one example of god in science? I suspect its more the ignorance and marvel part of the experience of god.
Not the same thing.
In physics, we learn that if a star were to begin its fusion reaction prior to accumulation of the mass associated with planets and formation of these masses into planets, the solar wind would blow the planetary dust out of the solar system and the planet could not form.
Now read the creation story, as found in the book of Genesis, particularly the order in which the earth was formed and the light was formed. Was this a lucky guess? Perhaps.
Ask a cardiologist how the body regulates blood pressure and ramps up blood flow to meet the oxygen demands when the body is under aerobic loads. This series of redundant systems is not the most efficient means of delivering oxygen to the body, but it is incredibly reliable and is much better than the delivery systems I have been able to work with. Chalk it up to evolution or to God. I will take either answer. But we still cannot adequately replicate it.
Perhaps it is ignorance and marvel, but my faith makes me a better person (as in I care more for others, not better than those who don’t believe) because it makes me care about others and it makes me want to understand more.
“In physics, we learn that if a star were to begin its fusion reaction prior to accumulation of the mass associated with planets and formation of these masses into planets, the solar wind would blow the planetary dust out of the solar system and the planet could not form.”? //// I don’t think even god could make sense of that gobbledegook. did the Devil make you say that?
But in the light best fitted to what your position appears to be–yes, you are confusing your ignorance with the Majesty of God.
Words are like that.
bobbo, the pragmatic, I doubt you even know to any scientific certainty what you really know/believe.
> “assuming that the above statements are my sincerely held religious beliefs”
But you aren’t practicing science. You have a preconceived notion that a “god” doesn’t exist.
Actual science looks for answers.
For example, can you rule out the universe is a simulation? Can a simulation have an author?
Now if you can’t rule out the above, how the hell can you rule out that there might be a “god” or “gods” or some sort of cosmic intelligence. For starters.
And why is your argument with Christians? If some organized religion happens to even be partially “right” it could very well be Buddhism or Islam.
This is the reason I’ve grown uninterested in “atheist canned-ham (non-)thought” … it is as shitty and simpleton as what it wishes to replace.
You talk science, yet you don’t display the scientific mindset (i.e. “I don’t know and you don’t know either.”)
p.s. I don’t think any “Christians” have the answers so you are barking up the wrong tree. Jesus taught compassion, tolerance, forgiveness and acceptance. Modern “Christianity” seems to be the opposite of what Jesus stood for.
Care to provide one example of “atheist canned-ham (non-)thought” ? I suspect its more the ignorance and marvel part of the experience of god, or atheist, or canned-ham, or shit.
Not the same thing.
HMyers–you are being unusually obtuse.
Silly Hooman.
bobbo, the pragmatic, please enlightened us with one of your hypothesis or prediction and it’s experimental proof of what you are saying. After all you being the man of science, you can prove what you are saying, correct?
Don’t forget, science is all about the Q.E.D (quod erat demonstrandum)!
Trust me this man is no troll. He is “The First One”
Mark, as a member of the “Church of Reality” myself I thank you for your post.
“If it is real We believe in it”
Go forth and proclaim it, that is the gospel.
People seem to have a penchant for exiling God into outer space. In my world God is not excluded from everyday objects and radiation. In fact, these things are God. Lucky me — in my Universe, I live within God and God exists within me.
What a bunch of MORONS!
“Believe” what you want. Base your “beliefs” on a fairy tale if it helps. Don’t open your eyes. Don’t open your minds to any kind of real truth! Go ahead and “believe” what someone else tells you is the truth. Obediently listen to the tradition of clergy who have historically been about as brutal as human depravity can get too. Then ask yourself if you are you really that damned stupid when your own God gave you a brain and some kind of intelligence to reason out what is real and what isn’t. So don’t even try to tell me who or what God is, since you probably haven’t even got a clue yourself! You probably only know the devil (assuming he exists too).
But if you are (still) religious and when you finally meet your end do you really think you will be with your God when your whole life may have been lead and based on someone else s lie? Are you that sure you aren’t following a different path than what your own God wanted you to follow? Are you willing to take that big of a gamble of going to hell when you refuse to use your “god given” gift of human thought and reason?!
Would it give you any comfort being reminded that energy can never be created nor destroyed and that it can only change form? This is a fundamental proven FACT that science has given us. It is not a belief. And it is not unreasonable to conclude that you will exist in some kind of form once your body has stopped functioning. After all, “we are all made of star stuff.” (Carl Sagan)
Yes. I too am an Atheist. I once though I might be agnostic. But Penn Jillette opened my eyes to my own bullshit. He got me to realize that when it comes to humans that there is truth and there are lies. PERIOD!
Personally, if I think I had a belief I think I might believe in George Carlin and his proclaimed savior Joe Pesci. I think George is “up there right now looking down on us” and saying “god damned idiots!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
noname in a spasm of ambiguous open ended queries says:
8/21/2012 at 3:26 am
1. bobbo, the pragmatic, please enlightened us with one of your hypothesis or prediction and it’s experimental proof of what you are saying. After all, you being the man of science, you can prove what you are saying, correct?
Don’t forget, science is all about the Q.E.D (quod erat demonstrandum)!
2. bobbo, the pragmatic, I doubt you even know to any scientific certainty what you really know/believe.
3. See No 1 above.
So, whats up Noname? /// I agree with you the scientific process is often misused, misunderstood, and mis appreciated. An example?… Science has not yet “proved” that smoking cigarettes causes cancer. Many people smoke and don’t get cancer, many people who have never smoked do get cancer. What to think????
Ahem: smoking increases your risk of cancer. And that will suffice as my very specific answer to your vague off point mostly irrelevant queries.
Got More? Do better, try again.
You are asking the wrong question. If you consider The Church of Reality a true religion then you should be asking “How do I register this religion as a non-taxable denomination?” in order to build up your cash reserves.
The Church of Reality (CoR) is recognized by the IRS as a not-for-profit 501 (c)(3).
Marc,
The search for understanding is rarely fruitless.
Good Luck.
That is the gotcha. A belief in science, like a belief in God, still is a leap of faith. Why is one more real than the other? Because on is directly measured through senses that can be fooled?
Alfie layering on his own special brand of nonsense but really not saying anything different from folks like Ken Isaak says:
8/21/2012 at 5:00 am
Science is my Bible
Utter nonsense, truth cannot be subjected to the scientific method. /// Just the opposite. ONLY science provides the truth. ((All statements subject to conforming definitions.))
To illustrate, one can prove “Ivory soap floats on water” by testing Ivory soap of various sizes in water, and observing if it floats. /// Exactly correct.
You cannot subject “thou shalt not kill” to the scientific method. Nor “Thou shalt not steal.” /// Not correct. Take a representative sample of people and randomly divide them up into groups to play a game. One group is told they can kill and steal while playing the fame, the other group is told they cannot kill or steal. Then measure how well the two groups do in achieving the goal of the game. Depending on the goals and rules, one group most likely will achieve better results than the other group. THAT will be the rule to follow. TADA!!!! Science wins.
These are not matters for science, and you misrepresent yourself, you believe lots of things that can’t be scientifically confirmed. //// Marc is stating aspirational goals and seeking input. My, my, my, how harshly judgmental you are. Religious much?==or just a high school drop out?
No.
The answer is yes. I took a factual, realistic approach to looking for God, and I found him. People look for what they want to find, and usually don’t find it (Extraterrestrial life, the missing link), so when I found God, I was a bit surprised.
“Belief without evidence” is a problem. How can we believe in something that we don’t believe exists, or have never found evidence of? Once people actually look for evidence, it will show up, either for or against. Most people defend the belief system which was taught to them by others, with ‘religious zeal’… even if it’s evolution.
After all, if the scientific community can take a faith-based approach to evolution, and defend it with what seems like religious zeal, then why can’t people who believe in God take a scientific approach, and search for answers?
Those who believe God does not exist will never be convinced by people on the other side, they have to look for themselves. That was me.
So, where is he?
Alfie are you doing your homework assignment?
What is the purpose of the human eye?
13 days and counting.
Alfie as so typically he does, demonstrates his abysmal ignorance in even the basic language of those things he thinks he is contesting says:
8/21/2012 at 5:43 am
So Baboons are in your family tree…why aren’t I surprised. /// No, Baboons fall outside the Family of Man. They are in the same ORDER of Primates, but not the same FAMILY of Hominids.
I keep telling you dumb shits to buy a dictionary and read it. For Christ Sakes===90% of your ignorance is within an arm’s lengths of a cure. Wrapped in your certainty…. why reach?
Silly Hoomans.
By definition, once a person relies on faith to answer the questions they have about life, the universe, and everything, they lose the ability to determine the facts for themselves. Once someone places their life in the service of any deity, they put themselves at the mercy of those who have appointed themselves the arbiters of that deity’s intentions and desires.
Many religions use fear to keep the rank-and-file in line, leavened with promises of an idyllic life in the world beyond this one. A fear of “The Lord” is simply a displacement of critical thought in favor of accepting whatever rules that those who claim to be speaking for the lord give to their congregation. (They don’t refer to the worshippers as “sheep” for nothing.)
Since no person alive has any real information about the nature of the mystery that is God, any person’s interpretation of the nature of God is no more valid than the next person’s. The Pope may have spent a long time in prayer, contemplation, and study, but his position on the nature of God is no more accurate than Jub-Jub the medicine man’s. Any real discussion on the validity of any given faith is no more than a debate by children on who has the best imaginary friend.
That’s where the big divide is, IMHO. I belive in God, but I don’t believe in religion. It boggles my mind to try and understand the doublethink that must go on in the mind of a Bible-literalist engineer, for example. I’d like to know do they get around the Pi thing, forget about the catechism.
What is reality? Lately, studies of the brain say that our reality as perceived by the brain is actually a “best guess” based on the senses; sight, sound, hearing, taste, and touch. Often the reality we perceive is different than the physical reality that exists in 3 dimensional space. This is a known fact as evidenced by the optical illusions that we are all familiar with. As a Christian, that’s all I’m trying to do, make a best guess about a reality that that lies beyond the veil of my physical senses. As David Foster Wallace says in his commencement speech at Kenyon College:
“Because here’s something else that’s weird but true: in the day-to day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship — be it JC or Allah, bet it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles — is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It’s the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you. On one level, we all know this stuff already. It’s been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, epigrams, parables; the skeleton of every great story. The whole trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness.”
Very much a hammer looking for nails, dontcha “think.”
Actually I “think” quite a bit and read many varying points of view and am willing to admit the possibility that I may be wrong. What about you?
I am open on many questions, often allowing the majority will to have its way as the issue not being that important to me one way or the other. On other questions, often involving my own actions and choices, I have lived long enough with purpose and self interest sufficient to form conclusions.
Those words most likely apply to you as well for most issues?
Pretending to have an open mind is usually a “pose.” But we’d have to go issue by issue to give these generalizations any clarity at all.
Gravity? Death Penalty? Fire burns? You like boys or girls? You want kiddies or don’t? You’d lie to save someone’s feelings or to get their money? How you treat family vs friends vs strangers vs enemies.
….. and on and on and on.
Reality: is that which hits you in the nose when you think nothing is there. Its why you don’t walk blindfolded towards a cliff or go diving at night in unknown waters or stick your hand in a box being told there’s something in it.
Other things too.
Who cares? Theism and atheism are faith-based in that they both truly cannot prove causality in what you want to call reality.
If there is a “God”, why does he / she / it want to prove itself in “human terms” so that your curiosity can be satisfied? What makes you believe they are compelled to do so?
What’s your definition of “God”?
A belief without evidence is either called Religion or Atheism. Neither side can prove their position and both seem to require a human understanding / context of things for matters that may never be within the human race’s capacity to ever know.
Be agnostic. It’s much more sane.
However – Atheism need not be proven because Atheism doesn’t assert anything. You have to prove what you believe in – not what you don’t believe in.
Good point…although I think you come close to the distinction between weak and strong atheism. Weak being the request for proof, strong being a faith based conclusion.
Another way to phrase your point is that claiming the existence of God is an extra-ordinary claim, requiring extra-ordinary proof ((ie–not what is written in a book, or what some expert says, or what you yourself have experienced)).
Never to be forgotten is how god appears to people along social/cultural lines. I have always found that to be powerful evidence god is created by man. IE–why don’t Muslim kiddies grow up believing as Mormons do, and vice versa? Having such heresy beaten out of them being a rather ordinary soul saving event always cracks me up.
Hard to believe the same species went to the moon.
Which tends to be my gripe with atheism since it only seems to address the man-made creation of a god.
All relative to what we know.
Actually I don’t talk about Atheism at all. Atheism is about nothing. I’m talking about reality and asking the question if God can be discovered through reality based processes.
Atheism is just another way to ask the same questions you are asking.
Everything is connected…..doesn’t matter whether that statement is correct or not… it leads to more answers.
When you or loved ones get sick, do you pray for a cure or do you go to a doctor?
Have you rejected god in favor of science?
Atheism or not all according to your druthers.
So it sounds like you’re suggesting he/she/it exists and you want empirical evidence.
Why trouble yourself? How will that change you as a person from your day-to-day life?
If Atheism doesn’t address causality, then it’s much ado about nothing.
Both sides claim to know something.
If one cannot prove causality based on their predisposition, then they have not sufficiently done enough to convert me IMHO.
Or an amazement at just how ignorant the human race is. Ideally it may lead to more answers…. or more questions.
I spent 35 years making my way painfully through the miasma of the world’s faith traditions, searching for a higher reality. I came out of it completely empty-handed. I now define myself as an atheist. I’m not quite a materialist – although if the materialists are ultimately proven correct, I won’t be at all surprised – but I consider the notion of a personal, benevolent, involved creator to be insupportable.
Of course, if this is your experience, believers – especially fundamentalists – will queue up in line to tell you you didn’t try hard enough, you didn’t give it enough time, you didn’t really want to believe, God isn’t finished with you yet… the rationalizations are endless.
Re: the comments above posted by drearily obvious Christians – don’t mistake their exhortations for concern. Their goal isn’t to help you; it’s to protect themselves from having to examine the inadequacies of and contradictions inherent in their belief systems. They’re furiously clutching a security blanket, and they won’t allow you to take it away from them. Everything else is subordinated to that.
The missionary isn’t really trying to convince you; he’s attempting to convince himself – because, he reasons, if he can convince you, then he must actually be right, and he can stave off for a little while longer the ever-present doubt that threatens constantly to overtake him.
Interesting. Seriously…. what took so long?
I didn’t as much choose as I got kicked out in Sunday School when I wouldn’t quit asking where all the rain came from for the Flood.
Seems I was disruptive to the class objectives. No Islam taught there.
Long story. Not really reproducible in this format, and probably inappropriate in this venue, anyway.
A lot of it had to do with having a really horrible life, and wanting to find a metaphysical system that made sense of it, along with some sort of higher reality – God, Buddhas or Bodhisattvas, something – that was empowered to help.
Sounds like the same process by which I became “existential” then pragmatic in my early 20’s. Still working on the ripples.
No need to give more info than you are comfortable with …. but …. good for various reasons to have a story in various different lengths for different settings.
We all have a great novel within us: the stories of our own lives. YMMV.
Thanks.
But science isn’t always correct either.
“But science isn’t always correct either.
When there is evidence that science is wrong, scientists will try again to find the truth. When there is evidence that faith is wrong, the faithful will deny the evidence.
There is a difference between science and religion, although the scientific belief that the material world actually exists and will answer well-formed questions in a consistent manner could be regarded as a matter of ‘scientific faith.’ So far, the evidence supports it…
On the other hand, there can be no evidence that contradicts religious faith, because the material world ain’t really there…
Scientits are sometimes wrong. But the concept that the disciplines of science should be used to determine reality is right.
I am scientist by profession and your “Church of Reality” is Science. It does give answers to all what we are able to grasp about ” the pursuit of the understanding of reality the way it really is. I am committed to believe in anything that actually exists.”
However, there is a set of both completely scientific questions and related set of non-scientific questions that by definition of above approach that approach can’t answer. NONE of your “God” question belong to that group. So, you really do not need answer other than you have.
If you want to find proper questions first: religion is interested in transcendental. You could ask yourself scientific question of “could there be something beyond our ability to describe it not just because of current state of knowledge but even if we knew all the science ever to be known”? Similar as with scientific concept of infinity this is completely scientific question. Only science can tell is yes, possible, but not able to grasp it with science. Another set of questions is not even related to the scientific thought (and great minds like Hawking tried their best to “scientificate” it – I know, I spoke with him directly about it) but similarly as above to “beyond creation” issues. Hawking did his best to attempt to fight scientifically uncomfortable singularity of BigBang. Only way out he could see was (literally!) the concept of imaginary time (mathematical concept). Only with it we could escape “something from nothing” that opens doors to religious musings. By his own admission – he failed and retracted the concept.
Marc, can you give an example of a scenario that would force you (and other members of your Church of Reality) to conclude that God exists?
If God appeared in person somewhere. Did a television interview. Put up a web site. Answered email.
I might even accept statistical proof where if Christians were consistently more honest that Atheists as evidence that points towards God influencing their lives.
But how would you KNOW that it was really God? Even if the entity claiming to be God could perform miracles, how would you know it was really God and not just some really clever human, or an alien with very advanced technology?
Exactly so… which in a reasoned world would move you right along to becoming an “anti-theist.”
…OR, in other words, the mere “existence” of God would not be proof of any other quality and would not even start to answer Epicurus’s Paradox.
AND… even if somehow that all were accomplished, or close enough==why difference would/should it make unless God was going to start answering individual prayers? ie–just a smart powerful dude.
NO ONE would think he was all loving right?===IE–WORTHY of being worshiped? What the frick does that even mean and who wants to spend their time doing THAT?
Silly Hoomans.
I suppose that if God wanted to reveal itself that it is smart enough to convince me.
Religious tenet: When all else fails quibble about the definition of “reality”
Marc your first mistake was expecting some type of logical response from the religious side. (see the “House” poster “If you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people”)
A better question would be the “Church of Predictability” If I can create a well understood and documented model of the universe, and then predict the outcome of future tests based on this model with an accuracy greater than (pick something easy here) 99%. Then I “believe” that model. My goal in such a religion would be to start adding nines to that predictability.
Anything that doesn’t meet that requirement is mythology.
There are things true but unprovable. You’re free to make your own decisions about them, or be undecided.
McGuyver in his typical pig headed way says:
8/21/2012 at 7:01 am
If Atheism doesn’t address causality, then it’s much ado about nothing. /// That would be weak atheism. Strong Atheism like science itself accepts the ultimate mystery of first causes. That still leaves us with enough to do without saddling up Unicorns.
Both sides claim to know something. /// Weak atheism–NO. Strong Atheism–Yep, all based on most reasonable explanations and abject total failure of religion to explain anything.
If one cannot prove causality based on their predisposition, then they have not sufficiently done enough to convert me IMHO. //// Good thing that is a personal problem for you to wrestle with. Oh LOOK!!! —- there’s Alfie. Your fellow bunkmate?
Weak/strong both grounded in weak/strong faith. At the end of the day, why does it bother you about whether someone is of a religious faith or not?
Not everyone is a “great” thinker like you given how you like to cherry pick when the lack of empirical evidence proves / disproves something. 🙂
I used to have a “Faith Based” rant about founding my own religion, CoGtUI, the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent.
It was the sixties, in Quebec so after 300 years of waging the war of the cradle. We’d sort of tired of being the underclass and the whole thing being waged under the authority of the catholic church. Frankly it was time for a change.
It had no bible. It was just one word and an elipsis on a 3×5 card: “Meh…” (The theologian out there could argue about the meaning for generations, it wouldn’t matter.)
It had no services, he’d never show up anyway.
It was the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent.
Sounds a lot like Deism that the French coined.
If the invisible white dude in the sky reveals himself to dorks like Todd Akins and Christine O’Donnell – why shouldn’t you get the same service?
Har.
“is belief without evidence a requirement?”
Pretty much. “By faith alone…”
Simulations have been mentioned earlier. The question being are we in the REAL universe or is someone in the real universe running a simulation containing us?
If there is one entity in the REAL universe running a simulation of the universe, why not two? Simulated universes now out number real universes. Odds are we’re simulated!
It could be that a simulated entity is running a simulation containing us.
Is there any evidence we are in a simulated universe? Not much, but on the grand scale the universe is kind of analog, but small scale we start to see things get kind of digital. LSBs?
Reality may be that some entity is running a simulation not of the universe but a being called “Marc Perkel” a somewhat easier simulation than the universe. Of course that makes everyone else in the “Marc Perkel Universe” just sub-routines.