Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 193 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
welcome to the newly developing glaciation period.
by paul
10/24/19 03:23 PM
Potatoes on Mars
by paul
10/24/19 02:55 PM
Fishing , baiting the hook.
by paul
10/24/19 02:43 PM
F=mv ... mv=F
by paul
10/24/19 02:37 PM
Do we have a moderator?
by paul
10/23/19 12:30 AM
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
10/23/19 12:22 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 13
Page 7 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
#13222 - 01/03/06 04:28 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Justine Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/07/05
Posts: 191
"But since ALL of our understanding of nature comes from scientific studies, it is very reasonable to thing that these questions can also be answered by science."

That's all I'm asking....See how reasonable I am.

I do understand that in relation to the Universe, questioning minds have only been around for an infinitesimal amount of time. And eventually, science's level of understanding may catch up to my questions. But, I'll be dead by then. What's the harm in wondering, now?
It's pointless to wonder about the unanswerable questions of reality? So what if it's a pointless passtime? Could be a definition in and of itself of reality based on science as we know it...reality could be just a pointless passtime.
_________________________
~Justine~

Top
.
#13223 - 01/06/06 07:06 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
Join the cryogenics club!
-I am.

Top
#13224 - 01/07/06 06:18 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Justine:

Reality is pointless. But it is better than the alternative.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#13225 - 01/07/06 09:31 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
Reality's alternative? What's that -fantasy?
"But it is better than the alternative."
That depends.

Top
#13226 - 01/09/06 06:00 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Justine Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/07/05
Posts: 191
Is it better than the alternative? (nothingness?)

If reality is pointless than this question gets really tough doesn't it. Rob's right. It does depend. Are we cursed with existence or are we gifted with existence? both?

For myself, a pointless life is only better compared to nothingness if I have lead a majority of happy moments. Or at least, if the quality of those moments of happiness outweighed my moments of pain.
_________________________
~Justine~

Top
#13227 - 01/10/06 01:27 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
But when you die you go back to this nothingness and all the reality is good for nothing.
Can you remember how it was before you were born? Shall I tell you that 'you' were once the happiest cave-woman in the world, what does this mean to you? -Nothing, you don't care.

P.S. I don't believe in reincarnation, I was just using it as an example because you can't tell a dead person that -because they are dead.

Top
#13228 - 01/10/06 04:47 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
But when you die you go back to this nothingness and all the reality is good for nothing.


Rob meets Sartre & Nietzsche.

Blacknad.

Top
#13229 - 01/10/06 06:06 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
And precisely what is wrong with that Blacknad? Is this all about your insecurity and inability to cope with reality as I have aluded in the past?

Perhaps a couple of quotes: one from Isaac Asimov the other from Carl Sagan are in order here:

"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today."
~ Asimov

during one of his talks on religion one irate member of the audience asked him "Now that you've debunked everything that makes human beings feel worthwhile, what do you suggest we do?"

Sagan's answer was "Go do something worthwhile."

And that is my suggestion to you Blacknad ... do something worthwhile. Do not justify your pitiful existence by pointing to the invisible purple rhinoceros. There are people starving to death ... help them. There are elderly people in need of care such as driving them to the doctor's office ... help them. There is massive corruption in the halls of government ... help expose it.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#13230 - 01/10/06 07:54 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
Everyone keeps talking about how we should expose the government. Tell me, if you were to get bitten by the most deadly snake and a chain-saw was close by, would you or would you not saw off your arm to stop your impending death? I would -it is your brain cells that make this decision, no doubt if this decision was up to the arm-cells they would not do it, there is always hope. On that same subject, many peoples 'brain cells' make them addicted to drugs that are harmful to the rest of the body, yet they continue to use them. I do not know what kind of government we have. So I'm hesitant to rebel against them. Why is the government always after money?
Case 1 -they are self-serving greedy people.
Case 2 -it is part of a strategy to ensure the well being of the people they govern.

What do I know?

P.S. Listen to Immortal Technique

Top
#13231 - 01/10/06 11:22 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
And precisely what is wrong with that Blacknad? Is this all about your insecurity and inability to cope with reality as I have aluded in the past?

DA, I know you think that my belief in God is naught but a psychological foil, but believe it or not, I want the truth and nothing but.

For a variety of reasons, (some of which I have written about, the rest I would not preach about), I have come to a belief in God and found it to be dependable, consistent, and when properly thought out - an excellent descriptor of human character and its associated issues - better than Freud and a host of others.

Blacknad.

Top
#13232 - 01/10/06 11:29 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today."
~ Asimov

Agreed. This is 'God of the Gaps' which is a failed philosophy.

I believe because of evidence FOR God... not because of evidence lacking for a wholly naturalistic view of existence.

Blacknad.

Top
#13233 - 01/11/06 12:04 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
Man on his relentless quest to dominate nature turns to science in curiosity and to religion in frustration and impatience. Having chosen the path of religion and speculating ignorantly for years over nature he comes to a conclusion. Feeling he has dominated nature at last, he climbs to the highest point he can find during a storm. At this point he stands and outstretches his arms to the heavens in a dramatic representation of his conquest with the rain thundering down around him and great flashes illuminating the sky. Here he stands, convinced he is one with nature and that there is some grand meaning behind his existence, and that this point is the climactic culmination of mankinds existence as he has achieved wisdome to account for the world -because he has found god.
Alas, the stupid [censored] gets struck by lightning and all the scientists have a good laugh at the fact that he chose to go the highest point in a storm.

Top
#13234 - 01/11/06 03:50 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Justine Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/07/05
Posts: 191
"Here he stands, convinced he is one with nature and that there is some grand meaning behind his existence"

I think we can all say that we are one with nature. That there is some grand meaning behind this existence....POSSIBLE...but unprovable.

My question is.....If there's no way to factually prove the existence or non-existence of meaning behind life....then which is the healthier belief? If I HAD to make a choice to believe or not to believe and there's no proof for either perspective....statistically, which viewpoint supports a healthier, happier life? Which is good for me? I'm leaning towards believing in something as a healthier choice.

In Rob's example, the way that someone convinced that life is pointless lives a happier life is in the feeling that they have not been conned or duped, that they are somehow smarter than the believers.
_________________________
~Justine~

Top
#13235 - 01/11/06 06:38 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Rob - "Man on his relentless quest to dominate nature turns to science in curiosity and to religion in frustration and impatience. Having chosen the path of religion and speculating ignorantly for years over nature he comes to a conclusion. Feeling he has dominated nature at last, he climbs to the highest point he can find during a storm. At this point he stands and outstretches his arms to the heavens in a dramatic representation of his conquest with the rain thundering down around him and great flashes illuminating the sky. Here he stands, convinced he is one with nature and that there is some grand meaning behind his existence, and that this point is the climactic culmination of mankinds existence as he has achieved wisdome to account for the world -because he has found god.
Alas, the stupid [censored] gets struck by lightning and all the scientists have a good laugh at the fact that he chose to go the highest point in a storm."


- What is this little story? What is it supposed to prove? I could change the end and say that he stands on the top of the mountain and is taken up into heaven, and the scientists have a good scratch of their heads because they can't explain it.

Equally pointless and silly.

Potential moderator, moderate thyself.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Top
#13236 - 01/11/06 10:07 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
Good one.

I just thought I'd garnish the topic with a little creative-writing.

The (apparently well concealed) point was that there are two ways to solve problems;
1. Study
2. Dream
(see very beginning)

Once again, good reply! smile

Top
#13237 - 01/12/06 02:31 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Justine Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/07/05
Posts: 191
"the point....there are two ways to solve problems;
1. Study
2. Dream"

Strange...this post is more elequent than your original story.
It's right up there with your description of man as a waterfall.
_________________________
~Justine~

Top
#13238 - 01/13/06 06:28 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
lol -thanks.

"It's right up there with your description of man as a waterfall."

Actually this applies to all living things. This also has a nicer sound because of assonance; living things are like...

Top
#13239 - 01/13/06 10:45 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
"I think we can all say that we are one with nature. That there is some grand meaning behind this existence....POSSIBLE...but unprovable.

My question is.....If there's no way to factually prove the existence or non-existence of meaning behind life....then which is the healthier belief? If I HAD to make a choice to believe or not to believe and there's no proof for either perspective....statistically, which viewpoint supports a healthier, happier life? Which is good for me? I'm leaning towards believing in something as a healthier choice.

In Rob's example, the way that someone convinced that life is pointless lives a happier life is in the feeling that they have not been conned or duped, that they are somehow smarter than the believers."

An excellent post! I personally would rather know the truth, no matter what. The knowlege that I know the truth is extremely satisfying and I prefer satisfaction over fun -or anything really.

But then, there's no way to really and truly know if something is true. So, actually, self-delusion is the way to go! But I just can't do it.

Top
#13240 - 01/13/06 11:24 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Self delusion in the way it is used here is surely the act of choosing to believe in something you know to be false. You delude yourself.

It is a dishonest act, and smacks of a cowardice that refuses to take the harder road.

If I weigh up the evidence, combined with my experience and find a belief in God compelling, and it in no way contradicts what good science is telling me, then I am not deluding myself - I am making an honest choice. I cannot choose to believe anything other, whilst remaining true to myself.

If there is no God and therefore no meaning, them be damned with it, I'll accept it and go the only honest route - the nihilistic hedonistic one.

I just don't accept that an honest, consistent, well-examined religious belief is at all cowardly and self-delusory.

And I don't see how my belief is at all retrograde to societies needs. In fact could I be so arrogant as to say that certain aspects actually add some value?

I suspect you won't let me get away with that smile

Blacknad.

Top
#13241 - 01/14/06 02:04 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
I'll let DA take care of it. smile

Top
Page 7 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.