SHEEPEOPLE

[Michael]

No, you misunderstand. I am such a witness, but my testimony, like most similar testimonies, while they are no secret and public, was not verified publicly, but privately. There are however, written, historic testimonies that were verified publicly...they are recorded in the bible.

But what you are purposing is unreasonable. Even in a court of law, one cannot actually reconstruct what they have witnessed...just so you as the jury of their peers can have the same verification. Be reasonable.

The problem is that the term "reasonable" introduces a subjective (and individual) set of personal choices. It also highlights the difference between a purely empirical standard of evidence (as atheists apply to the topic of God and nowhere else) vs. a "scientifically reasonable" standard of evidence.

Evidence if it's empirical in nature is fantastic, optimal in fact. On the other hand "science" has never technically been limited to studying, exploring, or testing 100 percent empirical models. There's even a certain amount of 'faith' required to study concepts like quantum gravity theory, since no carrier particle called a graviton has ever been observed in the lab. Likewise M-theory is requires 'faith' in 7 additional dimensions of spacetime, none of which have been observed in a lab. Scientists still study, explore and devote their entire professional lives to such concepts.

"Reasonable" in the context of "science" has never actually been limited to empirically demonstrated cause/effect relationships. Empirically demonstrated cause/effect relationships are ideal when possible, but a full 95 percent of mainstream 'scientific' cosmology theory remains devoid of empirical cause/effect justification in a lab.

Atheists tend to only apply a 100 percent empirical standard of cause/effect justification when it comes to the topic of God, whereas they don't apply such limitations in the realm of particle physics or cosmology. That's not even "reasonable".

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yet, every scientific explanation we've come to know about the natural world, was always preceded by a supernatural explanation. Not once has data ever been evaluated, and the best conclusion determined to be a supernatural one. Not once.

Perhaps science isn't capable of rising to the level of the supernatural. For example, science evaluates our problems, which are largely spiritual in nature, and continues to present the same failed 'natural' solutions.

 

[Dave Ellis]

No, you misunderstand. I am such a witness, but my testimony, like most similar testimonies, while they are no secret and public, was not verified publicly, but privately.

So how are you able to verify them publicly? Because if you can't verify them to me, then I have no reason to accept your claims. Secondly, what method did you use to verify them to yourself?

There are however, written, historic testimonies that were verified publicly...they are recorded in the bible.

Except we have lots of reasons to believe the biblical accounts are not reliable. Given that fact, we can't accept what they claim to be true without evidence to confirm them.

But what you are purposing is unreasonable. Even in a court of law, one cannot actually reconstruct what they have witnessed...just so you as the jury of their peers can have the same verification. Be reasonable.

That's why eyewitness testimony alone is not sufficient to convict someone of a crime. Evidence is required to show the testimony is true. We don't have that evidence in regards to the biblical testimonies.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Hello, my name is Scott. I am just one of many who have access to infinite knowledge. We have personally been contacted by the Creator of the universe, the creator of space, time, and matter. You are not going to believe it...but the universe is like a spec of sand on the beach of a greater reality. The good news is, the universe was created to tell us all about that greater reality. My advice? Forget about facts. They were all contrived. Instead, learn to read between the lines. And if you have questions, ask...and be patient. The world wasn't made in a day.

What's my middle name?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Galileo idea went against the science of his day as he couldn't prove he was right. It's the fact the math and models were easier was the reason his idea took off. It's a myth that is was "Science vs religion" it was "one scientific view vs another".

Actually, Galileo's idea wasn't all that uncontroversial among scientists of his day (I'm not saying it was universally accepted though), Copernicus came up with the heliocentric model 70-80 years before Galileo. In fact, Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler came before Galileo and many major scientific findings (i.e. Kepler's laws of planetary motion) happened before Galileo's time.

Initially the Roman Inquisition called his findings possibly correct, and the Jesuits backed him until in one of his works he was said to have attacked the pope / catholic teachings, leading to his conviction for heresy, his books being banned and being placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.

Galileo's findings weren't "science vs science", in fact his discovery of Jupiter's Moons and the phases of Venus put the final nail in the coffin of the geocentric model. What lead to his persecution is the fact he angered the church.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The problem is that the term "reasonable" introduces a subjective (and individual) set of personal choices. It also highlights the difference between a purely empirical standard of evidence (as atheists apply to the topic of God and nowhere else) vs. a "scientifically reasonable" standard of evidence.

Evidence if it's empirical in nature is fantastic, optimal in fact. On the other hand "science" has never technically been limited to studying, exploring, or testing 100 percent empirical models. There's even a certain amount of 'faith' required to study concepts like quantum gravity theory, since no carrier particle called a graviton has ever been observed in the lab. Likewise M-theory is requires 'faith' in 7 additional dimensions of spacetime, none of which have been observed in a lab. Scientists still study, explore and devote their entire professional lives to such concepts.

"Reasonable" in the context of "science" has never actually been limited to empirically demonstrated cause/effect relationships. Empirically demonstrated cause/effect relationships are ideal when possible, but a full 95 percent of mainstream 'scientific' cosmology theory remains devoid of empirical cause/effect justification in a lab.

Atheists tend to only apply a 100 percent empirical standard of cause/effect justification when it comes to the topic of God, whereas they don't apply such limitations in the realm of particle physics or cosmology. That's not even "reasonable".

You've made the claim that atheists only apply a 100 percent standard for god, yet that's not true. I hold the god question to the same standard that I would anything else. Is it reasonable to accept the claim based on the evidence that we have? I would argue it is not. The claim has not stood up to scrutiny.

 

[dlamberth]

Right. Science simply doesn't deal in matters outside the universe of space, time, and matter. What is troublesome, is they insist on reaching into their space, time, matter toolbox for answers, refusing to think outside the box.

It's true. Science is limited to the physical. That's the box it's in. Religion is in it's own box, one that is spiritual in nature. But religion can and I believe needs to break out of that box. For instance, I believe that if Christianity is be relevant in the future, it needs to develop a different cosmology, one that incorporates scientific discoveries. Otherwise it will become less and less of a factor. I'm not suggesting leaving God behind. Rather for the lover of God, it's seeing God's hand in the physical life processes that the sciences opens the window for us to see. The creation story is the best place to start because science is bringing a new creation story to light. And the world is in the process of embracing that new creation story. It seems to me as an opportunity for religions to bring science into our spiritual lives by embracing the new creation story. And I think it's important for all of us if that were to happen.

.

 

[ScottA]

So how are you able to verify them publicly? Because if you can't verify them to me, then I have no reason to accept your claims. Secondly, what method did you use to verify them to yourself?

I am not able to, at least presently, and you are under no obligation to accept. On the other hand, the curiosity of some many testimonies down through all of recorded history with collaborations even from secular records, must surely drive you mad.

I did not use a "method", it was instilled upon me, given to me for the asking.

Except we have lots of reasons to believe the biblical accounts are not reliable. Given that fact, we can't accept what they claim to be true without evidence to confirm them.

Yes, people on both sides are so unreliable. Still, it won't go away.

That's why eyewitness testimony alone is not sufficient to convict someone of a crime. Evidence is required to show the testimony is true. We don't have that evidence in regards to the biblical testimonies.

Sure we do. But then again, who can trust it, especially when it is easier to retreat something more comfortable.

 

[Michael]

You've made the claim that atheists only apply a 100 percent standard for god, yet that's not true. I hold the god question to the same standard that I would anything else.

Not with respect to your personal requirement of empirically demonstrated cause/effect relationship you don't. Science doesn't require an empirical demonstration of claim. No photon was ever redshifted by 'space expansion' in a lab, and no graviton has ever shown up as a carried particle for gravity either. No SUSY sparticle has shown up in the lab, yet 'dark matter' theory lives on. M-theory remains all the rage in some cosmology circles, yet not a hint of even a single extra dimension exists, let alone more than half a dozen more dimensions. Science has never required a purely empirical standard of evidence with respect to any topic.

Humans throughout recorded history have reported an effect on their lives which they attribute to God, and most humans believe in the existence of an intelligent creator.

Is it reasonable to accept the claim based on the evidence that we have?

Reasonable by majority standards, or reasonable based on tiny minority standards?

I would argue it is not. The claim has not stood up to scrutiny.

Your personal scrutiny, or an objectively measured sort of scrutiny?

 

[Chris B]

The Bible also tells you that the slave that does the will of his master without knowing what that will is, will receive less stripes than one who knows his will and doesn't do it. So I would say whether one is a believer or not, if he treats his fellow man like he treats himself, he will be ok as long as he doesn't deny the existence of God. To have doubts is human nature - Thomas doubted. Paul doubted, John doubted, all of them doubted. But none of them denied God. Those who have chosen to ignore the creation and instead futilely speculate that man and the animals is all that there is, those are the ones that should worry.

I spent 30 years arguing for evolution and current theories - until I got tired of ignoring the science and lying to myself. It is that firm belief in science which led me to a belief in God. I "saw" and then had faith, so many here have a greater faith than I.

Especially when we understand everything is made of energy - including our thoughts - and all will return to the One who Gave it. Energy merely transforms and is what makes our consciousness possible. Even science admits it can neither be created nor destroyed - but has always existed. Even if this violates the Laws of Cause and Effect - for every effect, there must be a pre-existing cause. Yet they are willing to set one of their main tenets of science aside when it comes to energy - but not God?


But yet when you gaze out at that universe - you are required to have "faith" in 95% ad-hoc assumptions they have tacked on to make it fit a semblance of the reality. Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Redshift, Black Holes, Neutron Stars, CMBR, the list goes on and on.

Science has not a clue what Dark Matter is, yet they "believe", despite every experiment being an utter failure. But that's because they use the wrong physics to describe a universe 99% plasma - because of wrong assumptions to begin with.

Black Holes - the only solution is a one body problem in an asymptotically flat universe devoid of all other matter. Then without a single two-body solution to the field equations, they shove them in by the billions. Despite the energy tensor being zero, declaring there is no mass besides that of the singularity existing anywhere in the universe. As soon as you stick two in - it is no longer an asymptotically flat universe and the math no longer applies - since no two-body solutions have been found. And as experiments are beginning to suggest, it is not objects orbiting a point source of infinite density and zero volume, but objects orbiting a common electromagnetic center. The link is at the relevant portion, but watching the entire video would be beneficial.

Plasma Space Experiment

We all see the same universe - some just prefer Fairie Dust over the reality of a universe 99% plasma.

Well, according to you I should worry two or three times over but, subject to new well-tested information appearing, I've done enough already. And your handling of physics is enough to show my why I look at the same universe as you and arrive at a very different conclusion. Your line on energy is sufficient ".. can neither be created nor destroyed " is almost invariably cited by individuals who have failed to appreciate its limitations in context.
(Energy can and does become unusable: incapable of doing work) Hindus not infrequently misuse Newton's third law of motion in a similar way, in their case to support the idea that all things are balanced by their exact opposites.

 

[Chris B]

What HAS been verified, however, it that without said spiritual realm...when you die, you're dead.

Yes, that's my operating hypothesis.
And the alternate isn't a "nothing to lose" proposition, so a judgement call is indicated.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I am not able to, at least presently, and you are under no obligation to accept.

Of course, in fact, I'll go one step further. Not only am I under no obligation to accept your beliefs as true, it would be intellectually dishonest of me to do so without seeing evidence for them.

On the other hand, the curiosity of some many testimonies down through all of recorded history with collaborations even from secular records, must surely drive you mad.

Not particularly. 1000 Faulty accounts, or 1000 unjustified beliefs still do not equal evidence. It's the same reason why the millions of Hindu accounts throughout history probably aren't all that compelling to you.

I did not use a "method", it was instilled upon me, given to me for the asking.

So how did you verify your beliefs to yourself?

Yes, people on both sides are so unreliable. Still, it won't go away.

What do you mean?

Sure we do. But then again, who can trust it, especially when it is easier to retreat something more comfortable.

Can you give an example of evidence that supports the bible stories, and shows them to actually be true? (Or at least makes them probably true)

This isn't a matter of comfort, it's a matter of being intellectually honest. Besides, the more comforting position would be to believe I'm going to live an eternal life in paradise. I'm arguing against that worldview, not retreating to it..

 

[Dave Ellis]

Not with respect to your personal requirement of empirically demonstrated cause/effect relationship you don't. Science doesn't require an empirical demonstration of claim. No photon was ever redshifted by 'space expansion' in a lab, and no graviton has ever shown up as a carried particle for gravity either. No SUSY sparticle has shown up in the lab, yet 'dark matter' theory lives on. M-theory remains all the rage in some cosmology circles, yet not a hint of even a single extra dimension exists, let alone more than half a dozen more dimensions. Science has never required a purely empirical standard of evidence with respect to any topic.

Which is why most of what you're referring to isn't considered settled science. You're bringing up hypothetical models which scientists are currently working on testing. If you want to talk about empirically backed ideas, don't bring up things that even the scientists that work in the relevant fields will tell you aren't empirically verified. It's flat out dishonest.

Humans throughout recorded history have reported an effect on their lives which they attribute to God, and most humans believe in the existence of an intelligent creator.

Sure, and in the same vein as above, attributing that effect to a god is simply another hypothesis. What matters is the quality of evidence supporting that hypothesis.

Also, saying most humans believe in an intelligent creator is nothing more than an appeal to popularity fallacy. But even at that, it should also be pointed out that only a small minority of humans throughout history have believed in your version of god, and your explanation for creation. Trying to lump every believer of the millions of gods and countless creation myths together into one team is again arguing dishonestly. The vast majority of theists throughout history would disagree with your views as well.

Reasonable by majority standards, or reasonable based on tiny minority standards?

Reasonable by reasonable standards.

Your personal scrutiny, or an objectively measured sort of scrutiny?

Obviously my personal scrutiny, I'm relaying my personal beliefs. Personal beliefs are always reached by your own examination of the facts. The trick is to use reliable methods for scrutinizing those facts so you can make your personal beliefs line up with reality as closely as possible.

 

[timewerx]

You can't prove God scientifically. People have to find Him themselves.

Albert Einstein did through observation of nature and probability analysis.

But he did this late in his life and did not make a formal write up of his analysis.

What Einstein did was bordering metaphysics and it wasn't popularized (as well as his pro-Palestine/anti-Zionist views) because the Jews were afraid that it will discredit their science hero. But it worked, I've seen the same things Einstein did in his observations.

 

[Strathos]

I thought Einstein was a pantheist

 

[DaisyDay]

Supernatural is something that breaks all know laws of physics which is exactly what scientist claim about black holes.

Scientists don't make that claim about black holes; they make it about the singularity.

 

[Michael]

Which is why most of what you're referring to isn't considered settled science. You're bringing up hypothetical models which scientists are currently working on testing.

Sure, but lots of scientific theories/models fall into that "hypothetical" category, including the most popular models.

If you want to talk about empirically backed ideas, don't bring up things that even the scientists that work in the relevant fields will tell you aren't empirically verified. It's flat out dishonest.

I think you missed the point. My point is that science is not limited to empirically verified concepts, and it never has been limited to such ideas. The whole point is to demonstrate that *non empirical* ideas play a huge role in 'science'.

Sure, and in the same vein as above, attributing that effect to a god is simply another hypothesis. What matters is the quality of evidence supporting that hypothesis.

So who exactly decides the "quality" issue, and why are you in the minority position on the topic of God?

Also, saying most humans believe in an intelligent creator is nothing more than an appeal to popularity fallacy.

In what empirical way is Big Bang theory *not* an appeal to popularity/authority fallacy?

But even at that, it should also be pointed out that only a small minority of humans throughout history have believed in your version of god, and your explanation for creation.

Should I care? Does "science' care about popularity? That same comment/criticism could probably said for everyone actually.

Trying to lump every believer of the millions of gods and countless creation myths together into one team is again arguing dishonestly.

Um, no, it's an example of honestly debating the concept of "monotheism". There is only one God in monotheism, and lots of various religions. It's no different from the fact that there is but one President of the US, and lot of sometimes conflicted beliefs about him. I personally think it's less than ethical to talk about multiple 'gods' when monotheism has been the consensus for thousands of years. There's just one God and lots of religions.

The vast majority of theists throughout history would disagree with your views as well.

And? Do you have any idea how many 'sects' there are in 'Christianity'? From the perspective of empirical physics, your point is rather irrelevant actually, not to mention applicable to everyone, including atheists.

Reasonable by reasonable standards.

And yet only about 4-5 percent of the whole population labels themselves an 'atheist'? How does that position seem 'reasonable' from the standpoint of pure statistics?

Obviously my personal scrutiny, I'm relaying my personal beliefs. Personal beliefs are always reached by your own examination of the facts. The trick is to use reliable methods for scrutinizing those facts so you can make your personal beliefs line up with reality as closely as possible.

And yet your beliefs represent only a tiny minority viewpoint. Why?

 

[Loudmouth]

Evidence can take you away from the truth. For example in the past the evidence pointed toward the sun went around the earth.

How did we determine that Geocentrism was wrong? By using evidence?

How can anyone know when they have "all evidence"?

You don't, which is why theories are held tentatively. If we required all evidence before coming to conclusions, we wouldn't be able to put anyone in jail.

 

[Loudmouth]

Correction:

Finite knowledge is demonstrable in a finite setting, while infinite knowledge is not.

Fantasies are not demonstrable, either.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is where the term "witness" would apply. Witnesses, do NOT "believe", but have first-hand verification of the truth. There are millions upon millions of us.

Then show us the verifiable evidence.