Is science set up...

[A4C]

If an omniscient, omnipotent being doesn't want to be detected ... he/she/it is not going to be detected.

That said, if Christian faith healers starting having statistically significant numbers of successes, if Christian Doctors who prayed with their patients started having better results than atheist/Islamic/Budhist Doctors...

If those who tried to burn down Christian churches filled with refugees found their gasoline and torches ineffective ...

Then science could say something, as it is... nope.

It is a matter of faith and it is up to us -not God
Remember only one got out of the boat - and even he faultered

 

[nvxplorer]

It is a matter of faith and it is up to us -not God

I understand this.

Remember only one got out of the boat - and even he faultered

This, I don't.

 

[Beastt]

At this point I think I understand what the bible is better than you. It is about controlling the masses through inculcation and fear. It is the most ancient form of control that exists. It preys on your fear of death and the unknown in order to control your mind and, consequently, your actions. It can be a tool used by religious leaders as a means to achieve wealth and power. Its teachings can be used to teach peace or to justify the slaughter of millions. The bible is whatever your spiritual leader has told you it is. All you can do is hope your particular leader is altruistic in intention.

Though a great many people will instantly reject this without objective assessment, this is really about as plainly and accurately stated as anything gets. One must only step outside the box of their current thinking and apply a brutal level of logic to what we see in the world today and what is said here to understand how perfectly they mesh. Of course it's also necessary to understand that this use of religious belief is not restricted to the Bible. A great many such control techniques have been employed around the world, each with a book, written by men, attributed to God, which is presented as a list of desires, given to men by their creator, but which also can be used to drive men to war against one another for the political and financial benefit of the few who find themselves in positions of power and utilize these religious beliefs to cause wholesale slaughter of masses for their own benefit. It's all around us. Unfortunately, as nothing is beyond denial to the human mind, there are always those who refuse to see what lies before them in the daily headlines of the media and written in blood across the globe, stretched out before them.

Excellent, excellent point, AnEmpiricalAgnostic!

 

[nvxplorer]

I agree with Beastt. Agnostic's post was succinct and accurate, IMO.

No offense to anyone, but the us vs. them mindset is apparent in many member's choice of user name. I get the impression that Christ has a literal army, and some people consider themselves to be his soldiers.

The "applause" smilie is telling, as well. It's as if the poster is cheering on God as he hits the game winning homerun.

 

[Beastt]

I agree with Beastt. Agnostic's post was succinct and accurate, IMO.

No offense to anyone, but the us vs. them mindset is apparent in many member's choice of user name. I get the impression that Christ has a literal army, and some people consider themselves to be his soldiers.

The "applause" smilie is telling, as well. It's as if the poster is cheering on God as he hits the game winning homerun.

Us verses them may never help the world find peace but it's a great recruitment technique for whatever membership you happen to be selling.

 

[raphael_aa]

Us verses them may never help the world find peace but it's a great recruitment technique for whatever membership you happen to be selling.

I can certainly agree with the sentiment in the last posts. Religion can, has and is being used as an exclusivist, fear based control technique. The error, imho, of such a position, though, is concluding that this is all religious expressions can be. A persepective based on spirituality may, in fact, be liberating and nurturing. It is interwesting to me that the very same religion may inspire both kinds of reactions. This leads me to suspect that it is not the content of our religious expressions that changes, reforms or transforms us, but something deeper which may be expressed in any spiritual form.

Just a thought.

 

[Beastt]

I can certainly agree with the sentiment in the last posts. Religion can, has and is being used as an exclusivist, fear based control technique. The error, imho, of such a position, though, is concluding that this is all religious expressions can be. A persepective based on spirituality may, in fact, be liberating and nurturing. It is interwesting to me that the very same religion may inspire both kinds of reactions. This leads me to suspect that it is not the content of our religious expressions that changes, reforms or transforms us, but something deeper which may be expressed in any spiritual form.

Just a thought.

And not a bad thought at that. If a religion can show that it does more good than bad, then whether or not it is truth, perhaps isn't quite so important. However, from my perspective, I don't see this as being the case for any of the popular religions today.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

And not a bad thought at that. If a religion can show that it does more good than bad, then whether or not it is truth, perhaps isn't quite so important. However, from my perspective, I don't see this as being the case for any of the popular religions today.

I am not sure, I think it would take a pretty serious effort to work out whether capitalism has caused more damage or good. If global warming goes to a worst case scenario then I think it will be a bit easier to sort it out.

Of course there will be apologists for capitalism who claim that greed and materialism are to blame, not capitalism per se.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

If an omniscient, omnipotent being doesn't want to be detected ... he/she/it is not going to be detected.

Although the above is true, my point, as I think was evident from the rest of my post is that such an entity could make sure that its existance is not provable.

I believe that God is quite detectable, he just isn't provable. Given my limited time (and skills and knowledge) I don't have the time to discuss the theology of why, but fairly clearly God puts a value on faith.

Really? Name one thing such a being could do without leaving some trace.

Create humanity.
Start with the predecessor to anthropoids and create a bushy evolution of species, pushing upright posture and then pushing the evolution of our brains.

For that matter he may be sustaining all of creation, "the stars in their courses" by his will.

That doesn't provide any additional predictive power above assuming that the stars move (and appear to move) purely due to impersonal natural forces so it isn't science, but while Ocham's razor is useful it is not a proof.

Actuaries exist... does God? If so God is keeping up with a statistically continuous stream of miracles.

I believe so, and a side point of my post is that he isn't doing so in any detected manner.
Leastwise my understanding is that while there are unexplainable cures from Lourdes the number is not statistically significant.

Never happens does it?

Not recently.

Science, by its silence... is saying something.

Only that God, if he exists, doesn't wish his currect involvement in the world to be demonstrated to a statistically significant level.

OTOH, the next 100 years or so may demonstrate that the observations about the universe that gave rise to the discussions surrounding the Anthropic Principle are not explanable. Of course at some level the Anthropic Principle is correct, such observations don't "prove" anything, but the AP, or more accurately the insistance with which it is pushed smells of obfuscation.

 

[Beastt]

Really? Name one thing such a being could do without leaving some trace.

Create humanity.
Start with the predecessor to anthropoids and create a bushy evolution of species, pushing upright posture and then pushing the evolution of our brains.

Actually, human existence has been primary among the evidences presented for the existence of a God. It's practically a standard; "If God doesn't exist, then who created man?". Of course this, as with volcanos, earthquakes, floods, droughts and all of the other things once attributed to God, now has a standard scientific explanation, despite the fact that most who desire to believe in God simply place God in charge of the scientifically sound process.

If I walk along a beach and create a sand castle, that sand castle is evidence of my interaction with the beach. If God creates life on Earth, then the existence of that life is the evidence God leaves behind.

But just as with the evidence introduced in a trial, there will be more than one interpretation of exactly what the evidence says. The main point is simply this; if God interacts with the physical world, the changes made through that interaction would be the evidence God leaves behind. More simply stated, you can't alter the physical without leaving an alteration behind to show that the interaction took place. We continue to examine all of the evidence that has been held as proof of God, and when the explanations emerge, all have been devoid of God.

Science, by its silence... is saying something.

Only that God, if he exists, doesn't wish his currect involvement in the world to be demonstrated to a statistically significant level.

Why would a God, who above all else, (excluding free-will), wants men to believe that he exists, wish to hide his involvement in the physical world? Why give men a book proclaiming your existence, and then hide your existence?

 

[Talcos Stormweaver]

Of course this, as with volcanos, earthquakes, floods, droughts and all of the other things once attributed to God, now has a standard scientific explanation, despite the fact that most who desire to believe in God simply place God in charge of the scientifically sound process.

Very true. In my opinion, some christians are simply trying to give their simple, hollow faith a certain substance. They make a dire attempt to support their own, scientifically innacurate interpretations of the bible. It's rather destructive to our religion when they do this.

Why would a God, who above all else, (excluding free-will), wants men to believe that he exists, wish to hide his involvement in the physical world? Why give men a book, proclaiming your existence, and then hide your existence?

Well, the simplest answer to a question like that is this: we were created for the sake of God's pleasure, and thus for the sake of keeping him interested. God just enjoys toying with us in the same way that a grade school student enjoys toying with his science fair ant farm. God hides his own existance to test us, and to see how many years it takes for a crusade to begin as a result of religious bickering. Have to admit, it would be rather fun to watch.

 

[Beastt]

Very true. In my opinion, some christians are simply trying to give their simple, hollow faith a certain substance. They make a dire attempt to support their own, scientifically innacurate interpretations of the bible. It's rather destructive to our religion when they do this.

That's entirely possible but there is also some merit to the idea that by attempting to keep their interpretation of the Bible in line with science, they're prolonging a belief in that which otherwise, would be far less believable. Most don't seem to have a problem with the fact that in order to do this, they must alter what they believe the Bible is saying. Certainly, before evolution became the standard accepted scientific belief, no one looked at Genesis and proclaimed that it supported the idea that God used genetic mutation to create man rather than his breath upon the dust. So they allow science to lead religion in an attempt to keep religion credible, and simply hand wave the false claims of Genesis aside, proclaiming that the details, (especially the most ridiculous ones), are unimportant to the overall message.

Well, the simplest answer to a question like that is this: we were created for the sake of God's pleasure, and thus for the sake of keeping him interested. God just enjoys toying with us in the same way that a grade school student enjoys toying with his science fair ant farm. God hides his own existance to test us, and to see how many years it takes for a crusade to begin as a result of religious bickering. Have to admit, it would be rather fun to watch.

I suppose one could carry your analogy a bit further and suggest that natural disasters are akin to a child playing with a magnifying glass at an ant hill. Of course this alters the standard Christian view of God and puts him more in line with the God illustrated in the Old Testament.

But I would have to ask; If you were all powerful and could do literally, anything you wanted to do to entertain yourself, would you choose something as mundane as a human ant farm? Certainly there is a vast separation from the proclaimed traits of God and humans, but there is also a claim that humans were made in God's image. Keeping that in mind, are you more likely to see a stereo, widescreen TV, DVD player and perhaps a multimedia computer system among mens "toys" or an ant farm and a magnifying glass?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Actually, human existence has been primary among the evidences presented for the existence of a God. It's practically a standard; "If God doesn't exist, then who created man?". Of course this, as with volcanos, earthquakes, floods, droughts and all of the other things once attributed to God, now has a standard scientific explanation, despite the fact that most who desire to believe in God simply place God in charge of the scientifically sound process.

I'm sorry, what is the relevance of this?

The main point is simply this; if God interacts with the physical world, the changes made through that interaction would be the evidence God leaves behind. More simply stated, you can't alter the physical without leaving an alteration behind to show that the interaction took place.

What part of omniscient and omnipotent don't you understand?

Of course there would be evidence, the question is whether science would be able to trace that evidence reliably to God.
The answer is no.

Why would a God, who above all else, (excluding free-will), wants men to believe that he exists, wish to hide his involvement in the physical world? Why give men a book proclaiming your existence, and then hide your existence?

First of all the evidence I've seen, including in the Bible is that God has had a relatively minimal involvement in the physical world.

Second of all I don't have a really good answer, but as I have already stated the evidence of the Bible is that he does put a premium on faith.

 

[Ledifni]

how could u prove the supernatural using the natural. it's a contradiction.

Well, you may be right. If so, then the truth of God's existence will always be unknown to science.

you must ask yourself, what proof is acceptable and what isn't?

God exists within the realm of REASONABLE possibility. I'm not gonna go on a crazy conspiracy rant like others, but physics do show the possibility of other dimentions, stuff we don't even know about yet. Why exclude God as a factor so soon in the game? We have so much more to learn.

You didn't directly answer my question, it sounds like your answer is "no, science can't conclude God did anything"

Science does not exclude God. It simply does not state whether God exists or not. If it is ever possible to find natural evidence for God, then science will be able to make a statement about his existence. Until then, it neither affirms nor denies God -- it is agnostic on the matter.

 

[Beastt]

I'm sorry, what is the relevance of this?

In responding to Phred, you suggested that creating humanity would be one thing a supernatural being could do without leaving a trace. Since human existence has been presented as evidence of a God, it would seem that your suggestion is purely without merit.

If humans were created by a supernatural being, then quite obviously, the existence of humans is the trace you claim wouldn't be left behind.

What part of omniscient and omnipotent don't you understand?

Before continuing in such a condescending manner, perhaps you should take a moment to answer a few of the questions posed in another thread concening omnipotence. Clearly it is an impossible concept because it poses it's own paradoxes. Can God, for example, create that which is beyond his control?

Of course there would be evidence, the question is whether science would be able to trace that evidence reliably to God.
The answer is no.

More specifically, the OP refers to tracing evidence to the supernatural. Man's tendency is to believe that anything he can't explain is best explained by the supernatural. Science has continued to step in and find the natural explanations for the formerly unexplained phenomena. Before you can categorically state that the answer is "no", you'd have to present some evidence unexplainable through natural means.

First of all the evidence I've seen, including in the Bible is that God has had a relatively minimal involvement in the physical world.

Second of all I don't have a really good answer, but as I have already stated the evidence of the Bible is that he does put a premium on faith.

That, of course, is assuming that God had anything to do with the Bible. But if you look to the tales offered in the Bible, God had a great deal of involvement in the physical world. Look to the proclaimed miracles of the Bible and you see God constantly offering his hand into the physical world. But if you look to the real world, we see no such intervention.

While one viewpoint is that God puts faith at a premium, another view is that belief in God puts faith at a premium because there is little else upon which to build belief in God.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Of course there would be evidence, the question is whether science would be able to trace that evidence reliably to God. The answer is no.

I don’t think it’s that simple. If your god™ really existed and, as you say, wanted to be known then he could offer up some pretty clear evidence (like the sand miracle or lining up stars).

First of all the evidence I've seen, including in the Bible is that God has had a relatively minimal involvement in the physical World.

Although at first glance this seems like a reasonable statement, I don’t think you could really make a scientific case for any involvement in the physical world.

Second of all I don't have a really good answer, but as I have already stated the evidence of the Bible is that he does put a premium on faith.

Don’t you think that this is at all suspicious? I have heard this before but I always wonder why your god™ would value faith. According to the bible he never used to have a problem showing up and validating his existence before. Doesn’t this reek of a convenient excuse for why there is no evidence now? No offense Robert, but I really don’t see how people can still swallow this stuff hook, line, and sinker in this day and age.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

I don’t think it’s that simple. If your god™ really existed and, as you say, wanted to be known then he could offer up some pretty clear evidence (like the sand miracle or lining up stars).

No?!? Really? Gosh, I'm so surprized...

...that you don't follow my point.

Sorry but I'm getting a bit aggravated with people who assume what my point is and go from there.

 

[Beastt]

No?!? Really? Gosh, I'm so surprized...

...that you don't follow my point.

Sorry but I'm getting a bit aggravated with people who assume what my point is and go from there.

If people read your post and base their assumption on what they read, and several of them assume the same thing, the fault for the wrong assumption goes to?

A) The lack of clarity in your post

B) The inability of readers to know what you meant

C) The owner of the website upon which you posted

D) The invisible man behind the undetectable curtain

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

No?!? Really? Gosh, I'm so surprized...

...that you don't follow my point.



Sorry but I'm getting a bit aggravated with people who assume what my point is and go from there.

Sorry Robert, you seemed to be saying that your god™ doesn’t want to be detected because he puts a high premium on faith. I took it that this was your explanation as to why we don’t have any evidence of you god™ existing today. So what were you trying to say?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

In responding to Phred, you suggested that creating humanity would be one thing a supernatural being could do without leaving a trace. Since human existence has been presented as evidence of a God, it would seem that your suggestion is purely without merit.

55% of scientists believe, based on the physical evidence, that God had nothing to do with human existance.

40% of scientists believe that God had some hand in our existance. Based on what I have heard from those scientists I believe that that belief is based on faith, not on fossil or DNA evidence.

It would appear that those best qualified to look at the evidence and determine whether God left evidence that points to his existance agree with me.

What part of omniscient and omnipotent don't you understand?

Before continuing in such a condescending manner, perhaps you should take a moment to answer a few of the questions posed in another thread concening omnipotence. Clearly it is an impossible concept because it poses it's own paradoxes. Can God, for example, create that which is beyond his control?

Fine, if you want to play semantics lets go to the position of many TEs:
What part of powerful and knowledgeable enough to:
create a universe that will, in a few billion years give rise to conditions favorable to carbon based life and, once that life has started, would evolve (at least) as far as primates
don't you understand?

Of course there would be evidence, the question is whether science would be able to trace that evidence reliably to God.
The answer is no.

More specifically, the OP refers to tracing evidence to the supernatural. Man's tendency is to believe that anything he can't explain is best explained by the supernatural. Science has continued to step in and find the natural explanations for the formerly unexplained phenomena.

True statements so far...

Before you can categorically state that the answer is "no", you'd have to present some evidence unexplainable through natural means.

Why?

That, of course, is assuming that God had anything to do with the Bible. But if you look to the tales offered in the Bible, God had a great deal of involvement in the physical world.

The Old Testament starting with Abraham covers something like 2000 years.
In my Bible that is about 1000 pages, now subtract out Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes ...

How many hundred years went between between the movement of the Hebrews to Egypt and the Exodus? How many years are Chronicled of the doings of the Kings without any substantial intervention?

The evidence of the Bible is that God periodically involves himself directly with the physical world, not continuously.

Even in the times he is directly involving himself it is limited:
Luke 4:27
"And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian."

I believe in God, yes, it is faith, no, it is not quite blind faith. I know things I have experienced, that perhaps Scrooge would put down to an undigested bit of stew, and that others have experienced which are more akin to grabbing a live wire. I find it unlikely that the Disciples would knowingly risk life and limb to proclaim a message that wasn't going to bring them fame or fortune. I find awe and beauty to be interesting concepts.

Proof? No. But not blind faith either.