science

[Niels]

So explain why you think it works with God but would work differently with the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Then demonstrate the evidence to back your assertion.

By God I mean reality. If you insist on using the term "Invisible pink unicorn" as a synonym for reality, then who am I to argue? Understood as such, little should "work differently".

Anyway, my point was that science has proven itself a useful tool for better understanding our environment. It has given us brilliant insight into our little corner of reality.

How we view that knowledge, evidence, whatever... is up to us. Glass half-full or glass half-empty... some notice the full part, while others notice the empty part. As I have never been under the impression that God is apart from reality, that the full part is there at all is sufficient for me. Clearly you view God as something utterly removed from reality, hence you view things in terms of the half-empty part. (Though I am not suggesting that you are a pessimist... this isn't a perfect analogy. If you would like, feel free to reverse which side is half-full, and which side is half-empty.)

 

[Beastt]

By God I mean reality. If you insist on using the term "Invisible pink unicorn" as a synonym for reality, then who am I to argue? Understood as such, little should "work differently".

If you wish to express the concept of reality, why not use the word "reality"? The word "God" is usually connected to some unevidenced, invisible entity of vastly superior nature. As reality has never demonstrated such an entity, it seems somewhat inappropriate to attempt to use "God" and "reality" as synonyms.

Anyway, my point was that science has proven itself a useful tool for better understanding our environment. It has given us brilliant insight into our little corner of reality.

I absolutely agree. And in giving us a better insight on reality, science has also provided naturalistic answers to many of the very questions which lead man to ponder gods in the first place.

How we view that knowledge, evidence, whatever... is up to us. Glass half-full or glass half-empty... some notice the full part, while others notice the empty part. As I have never been under the impression that God is apart from reality, that the full part is there at all is sufficient for me.

Then I ask that you grant that if one adheres to the scientific method, no hypothesis should be formulated for anything for which no evidence exists. If we apply this method to concepts of God, we find the assertion of God's existence to be wholly unscientific.

Clearly you view God as something utterly removed from reality, hence you view things in terms of the half-empty part. (Though I am not suggesting that you are a pessimist... this isn't a perfect analogy. If you would like, feel free to reverse which side is half-full, and which side is half-empty.)

It's not a matter of seeing things half-full or half-emtpy because, in reality, both of those conditions can and do exists simultaneously. God's existence and non-existence are contradictory. Only one can be correct. And as the evidence for God is lacking, if we apply those very standards which help us to gain insight to reality, we find the assumption of God to be methodologically incorrect. "I don't know/understand, therefore, God."

 

[DailyBlessings]

There's nothing to prove- Science is just a way of looking at physical evidence. It doesn't make "proofs" or insist on a certain metaphysical view of things to function.

 

[Niels]

If you wish to express the concept of reality, why not use the word "reality"? The word "God" is usually connected to some unevidenced, invisible entity of vastly superior nature. As reality has never demonstrated such an entity, it seems somewhat inappropriate to attempt to use "God" and "reality" as synonyms.

There has long since been a precident for using "God" as a word to describe ultimate or supreme reality. As such, I will continue to do so.

I absolutely agree. And in giving us a better insight on reality, science has also provided naturalistic answers to many of the very questions which lead man to ponder gods in the first place.

Naturalistic or otherwise, it seems to me that we are still pondering God and creation.

Then I ask that you grant that if one adheres to the scientific method, no hypothesis should be formulated for anything for which no evidence exists. If we apply this method to concepts of God, we find the assertion of God's existence to be wholly unscientific.

Perhaps your concept of God runs contrary to the evidence. In cases where my God concept appears to, as in the case of food falling from the sky, I presume a scientifically plausible explanation. A scientifically plausible explanation would be consistent with my admittedly limited understanding of God.

It's not a matter of seeing things half-full or half-emtpy because, in reality, both of those conditions can and do exists simultaneously. God's existence and non-existence are contradictory. Only one can be correct. And as the evidence for God is lacking, if we apply those very standards which help us to gain insight to reality, we find the assumption of God to be methodologically incorrect. "I don't know/understand, therefore, God."

Correction: I know/understand what evidence is available to me, therefore God. This is not to suggest that a comprehensive knowledge of God is within our grasp. Perhaps I am assuming that God cannot entirely be known (if I take biblical teaching at face value), but I seriously doubt that the human mind is capable of comprehending "everything" that constitutes reality anyway.

I agree that God either exists or God does not exist. However, this is a case where one can look at the same evidence and arrive at opposite conclusions.

 

[Beastt]

There has long since been a precident for using "God" as a word to describe ultimate or supreme reality. As such, I will continue to do so.

You may certainly use whatever words you wish and mean anything, either related or unrelated to their accepted meanings. But if you wish to be able to express your thoughts and ideas accurately to others, perhaps you should include your own private glossary at the bottom of your posts.

Naturalistic or otherwise, it seems to me that we are still pondering God and creation.

If you read the Bible, and I assume you do, you find descriptions of supposed acts of God. A great many of these directly violate what we know about the way matter and energy interact. Therefore, such acts are outside of, or beyond nature. Hence, we refer to them as supernatural rather than natural. To you it may seem we are still pondering God. But as nature is always found to be explainable without a God, adding one is a violation of the basic principles of the scientific method.

Perhaps your concept of God runs contrary to the evidence. In cases where my God concept appears to, as in the case of food falling from the sky, I presume a scientifically plausible explanation. A scientifically plausible explanation would be consistent with my admittedly limited understanding of God.

There is a scientifically plausible explanation. History has provided this lesson time and time again. And the lesson is always the same. Nothing in nature appears to have necessity for any supernatural or metaphysical entity. Non-sentient nature explains it all.

Correction: I know/understand what evidence is available to me, therefore God.

So you're suggesting you have evidence of God. Why not share?

This is not to suggest that a comprehensive knowledge of God is within our grasp. Perhaps I am assuming that God cannot entirely be known (if I take biblical teaching at face value), but I seriously doubt that the human mind is capable of comprehending "everything" that constitutes reality anyway.

Leading to the failure to try to understand. Why pursue that which you will never attain? But such concepts lead to intellectual laziness. Wherever man has pursued understanding of that said to be of God, he has found natural explanations and never found a need for God within those explanations.

I agree that God either exists or God does not exist. However, this is a case where one can look at the same evidence and arrive at opposite conclusions.

The problem when something like this is observed is usually in the order. It is appropriate to observe the evidence and from that, piece together an demonstrable explanation. Where religion is concerned, the conclusion comes first and evidence is later sought which might support the conclusion. There are those who can look at a lightening bolt and see a balancing differential of charge between the clouds and the ground. Others can look at this same evidence and conclude the existence of Zeus. The conclusion of Zeus is but conjecture, the work of imagination without evidentiary confirmation. Seeking demonstrability leads to an explanation devoid of Zeus/gods as does proper scientific methodolgy in every case so far.

 

[Niels]

You may certainly use whatever words you wish and mean anything, either related or unrelated to their accepted meanings. But if you wish to be able to express your thoughts and ideas accurately to others, perhaps you should include your own private glossary at the bottom of your posts.

I get my definitions from the dictionary. Where do yours come from? You define God as something for which there is no evidence... I've never seen that in a dictionary.

If you read the Bible, and I assume you do, you find descriptions of supposed acts of God. A great many of these directly violate what we know about the way matter and energy interact. Therefore, such acts are outside of, or beyond nature. Hence, we refer to them as supernatural rather than natural. To you it may seem we are still pondering God. But as nature is always found to be explainable without a God, adding one is a violation of the basic principles of the scientific method.

You are telling me that just because we don't understand something that it is necessarily beyond nature? Good grief.

There is a scientifically plausible explanation. History has provided this lesson time and time again. And the lesson is always the same. Nothing in nature appears to have necessity for any supernatural or metaphysical entity. Non-sentient nature explains it all.

Of course there is a scientifically plausible explanation. That's how things are with God. Perhaps that's why Biblical teachings are consistently against magic, superstition etc.

So you're suggesting you have evidence of God. Why not share?

Anything and everything is proof of God. You simply reject such evidence.

Leading to the failure to try to understand. Why pursue that which you will never attain? But such concepts lead to intellectual laziness. Wherever man has pursued understanding of that said to be of God, he has found natural explanations and never found a need for God within those explanations.

There is no contradiction between nature and God... only occasional disagreements among people (Galileo may have disagreed with the official position of the Church in Rome, for example, but he himself was a Christian).

The problem when something like this is observed is usually in the order. It is appropriate to observe the evidence and from that, piece together an demonstrable explanation. Where religion is concerned, the conclusion comes first and evidence is later sought which might support the conclusion.

Each of us has a bias that influences how we interpret things. If you had to write a paper, I'd be willing to bet that you'd actively look for scholarly sources that agree with your preconceptions. This is not specific to theists. Your bias appears to be against a source. Perhaps you tend to prefer a more "magical" explanation... that everything simply came from nothing?

 

[Beastt]

I get my definitions from the dictionary. Where do yours come from? You define God as something for which there is no evidence... I've never seen that in a dictionary.

You have a standard dictionary which defines "God" as reality and "reality" as God?

You are telling me that just because we don't understand something that it is necessarily beyond nature? Good grief.

No, I'm telling you that whenever we gain understanding of something previously said to be of God, we find no evidence or necessity of God. Look back to where the concept of gods came from; Volcanos, Earthquakes, Storms, Diseases, Droughts... all thought to have been caused directly by gods. So the people built religions upon these supposed gods, made sacrifices to them, prayed to them and suggested that their behaviors angered these gods resulting in the hardships caused by the natural events they attributed to these gods. Sound familiar?

Science however, which operates on evidence rather than superstition, has unraveled the mystery behind these events. And everytime another previously misunderstood event becomes understood, we find no evidence of God. You still wish to add God above all of the known factors. But no such God-factor has ever been found or been necessary. The events in nature are rarely without some form of mathematical modeling. And in the equations, we find no God-factor, yet the equations still tend to model the natural event we seek to understand. When you can show that 2 + 2 = 4, there is no need and no reason behind the claim that, in reality, 2 + 2 + God = 4. Yet this is what you do when you suggest that everything is evidence of God. If you reverse engineer such an equation, you find truth, in that 4 minus 2 equals 2, and 2 minus 2 equals zero. Therefore, in such an equation, God equals zero.

Of course there is a scientifically plausible explanation. That's how things are with God. Perhaps that's why Biblical teachings are consistently against magic, superstition etc.

Biblical teachings offer a number of instances where God is supposed to have performed a miracle. And many, if not most, of these miracles aren't simply beyond our understanding, they are in stark contrast to our understanding. We know of several reasons that one dead fish can't suddenly turn into many dead fish. We know of several natural laws which prevent one loaf of bread from becoming many loaves of bread. We understand the way water interacts with gravity and with the winds, and if water is to always behave in such a manner, the parting of the Red Sea is in violation to what we know. Yet you claim that God always remains within the scientifically plausible. That's a claim without credibility.

Superstition once held that leprosy could be cured using the blood of a dead bird, sprinkled upon the patient using a live bird along with scarlet, hyssop and cedar wood. Of course there was a superstitious ritual necessary during the "treatment" of the patient involving washings, killing the bird over running water within an earthen vessel, living outside the tent for seven days, and of course, a priest had to perform the whole ceremony. We today know that such a ritual is completely ineffective as a medical cure for anything. In fact, it's more likely to infect the patient with bird flu. Where did such a superstition come from? According to your Bible, it came to Moses directly from your God. (Leviticus 14:1-9)

Anything and everything is proof of God.

One could just as well say, "Anything and everything is proof of the Invisible Pink Unicorn" or proclaim that, "Anything and everything is proof that the all-powerful quarter in my left-front jean's pocket is in control". But in reality, (the thing that science explores, which operates upon evidentiary demonstrations rather than the conjecture you keep applying), there is no evidence whatsoever of God.

You wish to proclaim yourself to be scientifically rational, yet you continue to thrust ingredients into nature which have never been found in nature, nor has there ever been found any reason to believe they are necessary. It is no more scientifically rational, than to suggest a bread recipe won't rise unless I have my lucky quarter in my pocket, then, upon hearing that someone hundreds of miles away baked a successful loaf of bread using the same recipe, proclaiming that my lucky quarter's power extends farther than I had first imagined. You're applying conjecture, without evidence, and proclaiming that everything is evidence of that which you imagine.

You simply reject such evidence.

And so do you.

This is what so many believers forget. They reject exactly the same kind of evidence that non-believers and believers alike, all over the world reject. When someone points to the sky, the trees and the mountains and proclaims this to be evidence of Allah, do you find their evidence compelling? Do you suddenly believe that Allah is the creator of all and thus your God to be a fallacy? When someone points to all of that you suggest as evidence of God, and proclaims it to be evidence of Muhammed, do you suddenly drop your Christian God and Allah, and realize their belief in Muhammed? If you don't find their "evidence" to be compelling, why would you expect that anyone should find your evidence, which is of an identical nature to theirs, (not really evidence), to be compelling?

Before anything can rationally be proclaimed to be evidence of something else, a link must be demonstrated. And you can demonstrate no such link. Your link is simply your conjecture and you dismiss the need for a link by proclaiming that there are some things we simply can't understand. But whether your assumption is true or untrue, you still can't show how anything is evidence of God, rendering what you offer to be decidedly other than evidence. One can't simply proclaim, "I found my missing sock; therefore, God.", without demonstrating how God lead to the recovery of the missing sock.

There is no contradiction between nature and God... only occasional disagreements among people (Galileo may have disagreed with the official position of the Church in Rome, for example, but he himself was a Christian).

Science is not what scientists believe. Science is what scientists can demonstrate. Galileo may have believed in God just as Darwin did. But neither applied God directly to their scientific findings because to do so is wholly unscientific. Need you be reminded that the church believed the geocentric nature of the universe to be "evidence of God" and the Bible to be "evidence of God", yet neither have ever been linked to God. And in the case of the geocentric universe, we now know that it never existed, despite biblical scripture insinuating to the contrary.

Each of us has a bias that influences how we interpret things.

And if we allow such bias into our findings, we have violated the scientific method. And that is precisely why your proclamation that "anything and everything is evidence of God", is decidedly in violation to the principles of science.

If you had to write a paper, I'd be willing to bet that you'd actively look for scholarly sources that agree with your preconceptions. This is not specific to theists. Your bias appears to be against a source. Perhaps you tend to prefer a more "magical" explanation... that everything simply came from nothing?

It would depend upon the criteria laid forth for the work. It it were to be a scientific paper, then it should be based upon evidence. The work of scientists may be, and likely would be, included, but only their work is pertinent to the discussion in the paper, not their personal beliefs or bias.

As for you "everything came from nothing" idea, this is exactly what people imply when they proclaim God created the universe. God is said to be metaphysical rather than physical. So at a point where you have only God, there is no physical. Yet the entire universe is physical. So how did the complete non-existence of the physical suddenly poof into everything we know to exist? That's a proclamation of everything from nothing. And it doesn't explain how it happened, it only implies a "who". So how did it happen? Where did God come from. The standard response is that God has always existed. Fine then. If that works for God of which there is no evidence, then it works for the universe from which all evidence arises. The universe may have taken different forms, but there is no reason to believe that it hasn't always existed in one form or another.

 

[Niels]

You have a standard dictionary which defines "God" as reality and "reality" as God?

My dictionary defines God as "supreme reality" (Merriam-Webster, 1st definition for God), not the other way around. If there was an entry for "supreme reality", then I suppose it might mention monotheism.

No, I'm telling you that whenever we gain understanding of something previously said to be of God, we find no evidence or necessity of God. Look back to where the concept of gods came from; Volcanos, Earthquakes, Storms, Diseases, Droughts... all thought to have been caused directly by gods. So the people built religions upon these supposed gods, made sacrifices to them, prayed to them and suggested that their behaviors angered these gods resulting in the hardships caused by the natural events they attributed to these gods. Sound familiar?

Your God concept is clearly different than mine. There is more to the difference between the idea of "gods" and that of a monotheistic "God" than a big "G".

Science however, which operates on evidence rather than superstition, has unraveled the mystery behind these events. And everytime another previously misunderstood event becomes understood, we find no evidence of God. You still wish to add God above all of the known factors. But no such God-factor has ever been found or been necessary. The events in nature are rarely without some form of mathematical modeling. And in the equations, we find no God-factor, yet the equations still tend to model the natural event we seek to understand. When you can show that 2 + 2 = 4, there is no need and no reason behind the claim that, in reality, 2 + 2 + God = 4. Yet this is what you do when you suggest that everything is evidence of God. If you reverse engineer such an equation, you find truth, in that 4 minus 2 equals 2, and 2 minus 2 equals zero. Therefore, in such an equation, God equals zero.

You have placed God on the wrong side of the equal sign. It would be more accurate to say that God equals the sum totality of everything.

Biblical teachings offer a number of instances where God is supposed to have performed a miracle. And many, if not most, of these miracles aren't simply beyond our understanding, they are in stark contrast to our understanding. We know of several reasons that one dead fish can't suddenly turn into many dead fish. We know of several natural laws which prevent one loaf of bread from becoming many loaves of bread. We understand the way water interacts with gravity and with the winds, and if water is to always behave in such a manner, the parting of the Red Sea is in violation to what we know. Yet you claim that God always remains within the scientifically plausible. That's a claim without credibility.

If you were to travel back in time 200 years, most people would say that a modern cell-phone operates in stark contrast to our understanding. As incredible as the technology may seem, that doesn't mean the cell phone violates the laws of nature.

Superstition once held that leprosy could be cured using the blood of a dead bird, sprinkled upon the patient using a live bird along with scarlet, hyssop and cedar wood. Of course there was a superstitious ritual necessary during the "treatment" of the patient involving washings, killing the bird over running water within an earthen vessel, living outside the tent for seven days, and of course, a priest had to perform the whole ceremony. We today know that such a ritual is completely ineffective as a medical cure for anything. In fact, it's more likely to infect the patient with bird flu. Where did such a superstition come from? According to your Bible, it came to Moses directly from your God. (Leviticus 14:1-9)

Perhaps there was another purpose to the ritual, such as providing a placebo effect, at a time when no true medical treatment had been developed? (this intended as a question, not a statement)

One could just as well say, "Anything and everything is proof of the Invisible Pink Unicorn" or proclaim that, "Anything and everything is proof that the all-powerful quarter in my left-front jean's pocket is in control". But in reality, (the thing that science explores, which operates upon evidentiary demonstrations rather than the conjecture you keep applying), there is no evidence whatsoever of God.

When you compare the idea of God (supreme reality) to that of an invisible pink unicorn or a lucky quarter, you are barking up the wrong tree. Unless of course, your quarter and unicorn are merely symbolic representations of the greater cosmic totallity.

You wish to proclaim yourself to be scientifically rational, yet you continue to thrust ingredients into nature which have never been found in nature, nor has there ever been found any reason to believe they are necessary. It is no more scientifically rational, than to suggest a bread recipe won't rise unless I have my lucky quarter in my pocket, then, upon hearing that someone hundreds of miles away baked a successful loaf of bread using the same recipe, proclaiming that my lucky quarter's power extends farther than I had first imagined. You're applying conjecture, without evidence, and proclaiming that everything is evidence of that which you imagine.

I'm neither trusting ingredients into nature nor adding anything. I'm simply meditating on the big picture. We are free to do so... and we are free to draw different conclusions from the same evidence.

This is what so many believers forget. They reject exactly the same kind of evidence that non-believers and believers alike, all over the world reject. When someone points to the sky, the trees and the mountains and proclaims this to be evidence of Allah, do you find their evidence compelling? Do you suddenly believe that Allah is the creator of all and thus your God to be a fallacy?

Then I might find the argument for Allah to be somewhat compelling. If Allah is the name given to the continuous creative force at work in the cosmos, the supreme reality of everything, then I would call it Allah. That said, this wouldn't make my God a fallacy... rather it would be a matter of semantics.

Before anything can rationally be proclaimed to be evidence of something else, a link must be demonstrated. And you can demonstrate no such link. Your link is simply your conjecture and you dismiss the need for a link by proclaiming that there are some things we simply can't understand.

Things I do not understand merely fuel my curiosity or add to my frustration. What link am I dismissing?

Galileo may have believed in God just as Darwin did. But neither applied God directly to their scientific findings because to do so is wholly unscientific. Need you be reminded that the church believed the geocentric nature of the universe to be "evidence of God" and the Bible to be "evidence of God", yet neither have ever been linked to God. And in the case of the geocentric universe, we now know that it never existed, despite biblical scripture insinuating to the contrary.

From what I've read, it seems most people of that era believed the universe to be geocentric. They had limited information, and the Roman Catholic Church happened to officially subscribe to a popular misunderstanding of the day.

And if we allow such bias into our findings, we have violated the scientific method. And that is precisely why your proclamation that "anything and everything is evidence of God", is decidedly in violation to the principles of science.

If "anything and everything is evidence of God", then what purpose would be served by including it in scientific inquiry? I do not suggest that we should violate the scientific method.

It would depend upon the criteria laid forth for the work. It it were to be a scientific paper, then it should be based upon evidence. The work of scientists may be, and likely would be, included, but only their work is pertinent to the discussion in the paper, not their personal beliefs or bias.

I agree with you. However, I often encounter tangental comments, with regard to theism etc. included in such writing. Many of these tangents are unrelated to the data, yet are deceptively inserted alongside the actual study info. A while back, on poster posted a brilliant essay on the creation of multi-universes (among other things). Unfortunately, the author would occasionally make snide comments about how this proves the non-existence of God etc. His bias may not have effected the data itself, but it certainly made him sound like a kook when he let it show.

As for you "everything came from nothing" idea, this is exactly what people imply when they proclaim God created the universe.

Think of God as the name give to the largest possible set. I agree that there are similarities to the idea that "everything came from nothing". That said, I am reasonably certain that everything came from something.

God is said to be metaphysical rather than physical. So at a point where you have only God, there is no physical.

Correction: God (as understood by Christianity) is more often said to be both physical and metaphysical. Personally, I would argue that no such distinction should be made... as the metaphysical aspect seems only to refer to that which we may or may not ever be able know.

 

[Beastt]

My dictionary defines God as "supreme reality" (Merriam-Webster, 1st definition for God), not the other way around. If there was an entry for "supreme reality", then I suppose it might mention monotheism.

So as you can see, while you are certainly welcome to use whatever word you wish and mean whatever you wish to mean, certainly no one is going to look at your posts and see "reality" when the word you've used is "God".

Incidentally, Christianity isn't monotheistic. It's polytheistic.

Your God concept is clearly different than mine. There is more to the difference between the idea of "gods" and that of a monotheistic "God" than a big "G".

Not really. Using an upper-case "G" simply implies the Christian God rather than any one of the multitude of other god's more often referred to by a more proper name.

You have placed God on the wrong side of the equal sign. It would be more accurate to say that God equals the sum totality of everything.

Claiming accuracy when such a claim is backed by zero evidence isn't just entirely contrary to the scientific method, but is also the process behind every superstition ever known to man. In fact, some known superstitions have substantially more evidence behind them than your assertion here.

If you were to travel back in time 200 years, most people would say that a modern cell-phone operates in stark contrast to our understanding. As incredible as the technology may seem, that doesn't mean the cell phone violates the laws of nature.

You need to understand the difference between not knowing how something might work and knowing that for something to occur in a particular fashion is a violation of what is known. Nothing known 200 years ago would prevent a modern cell phone from functioning. If you think you know of an accepted physical law from 200 years ago which would prevent a cell phone from functioning, please present that along with references.

Today we are incapable of time travel. We have barely a hint of how to engineer a machine which might allow transferring ourselves across time. Yet even Einstein suggested that theoretically, there is nothing known to prevent time travel as a possibility. You're looking at a situation where we hadn't even begun to lay the ground work for a technology to exist, and proclaiming that science of 200 years ago would proclaim the technology to be impossible. But there is nothing about cell phone technology today which is in violation of our understanding of physics even 200 years ago. So in your analogy, you're attempting to compare and event known to require violation of accepted physical laws, (as in the Bible's miracles), with something not known to violate accepted physical laws, (cell phone technology).

Perhaps there was another purpose to the ritual, such as providing a placebo effect, at a time when no true medical treatment had been developed? (this intended as a question, not a statement)

Most imply that this was an example of the necessity to follow steps as provided by God. But, of course, since it's presented as a cure for leprosy, and we all know it wouldn't cure leprosy, it would seem to me that all that would be learned is that if you follow God's prescribed steps, it won't get you where he claimed it would. So in that respect, perhaps your response is somewhat more valid than what I usually see.

But, having said that, I have to ask; have you ever seen the symptoms of leprosy? Placebo effect certainly does come into play with some disorders such as angina and headache. It's somewhat less likely to believe that one would be fooled by placebo effect when their ailment includes external nodules, skin lesions and epistaxis, (nose bleeds). Aside from that, the insinuation is that God would have claimed this ritual would cure leprosy, full well knowing that it wouldn't. And add to that the consideration of the wisdom of dripping bird blood from a freshly killed bird onto someone with skin lesions. I understand that you offered that as but one possibility and more of a question than a statement, however I think it serves as a good example of how bias can taint one's interpretation of the evidence. What we have is evidence of a lie. Whether that lie is on the part of God, Moses or the author is unclear and up to debate. It would be interesting, were you not familiar with the scripture for you to serve on a jury in a case where a doctor was accused of malpractice for prescribing exactly this same treatment for a patient suffering with leprosy. What do you think; guilty or not guilty? I think we can fairly safely assume you wouldn't be jumping to his defense. But your desire to believe in God and in the Bible provides you with a very substantial bias.

Suppose you were to purchase a book of home remedies, open it up and read the ritualistic treatment from the Bible listed as a home cure for leprosy. Were you unaware of the biblical account, how much credibility would you hold for the authors or publisher of the book? Would you be prone to believe such a treatment might be successful? Would you continue to consult the same book for other home remedies? Or would you assume that the author was only attempting to provide hope through placebo effect, or prepare the reader for the necessity of following directions? I think it's fair to suggest that most people would toss the book in the trash. Some might even consult a lawyer and engage the publisher and author in civil litigation -- and they'd win. But when we apply a bias based on pre-conceived notions about the book, it's not uncommon to see those who apply the emotion of desire to their interpretation of the evidence, instantly attempt to defend the claims or an alternative purpose for the claims, even when the text makes no such claims of such purpose. In such behavior, one clearly demonstrates the ability of bias to avoid what is offered by the evidence, rather than accepting the evidence and follow it to a reasonable conclusion.

When you compare the idea of God (supreme reality) to that of an invisible pink unicorn or a lucky quarter, you are barking up the wrong tree. Unless of course, your quarter and unicorn are merely symbolic representations of the greater cosmic totallity.

No such thing I'm afraid. There is only reality, no "supreme reality", no "greater cosmic totality". I know people like to think there is something more to reality, and perhaps there is. But until we have credible evidence, any suggestion as to the nature of anything beyond what we know about is nothing but the product of imagination. You have to remember, the Bible came from men in a rather superstitious culture, at a time when people were looking for gods all over the place. The authors claimed they were influenced by the god they believed to exist, but that's the same claim made for almost every religious book ever written, and pretty much every god is based on a book written only by men. No book has ever come into existence other than by the hand of man. To suggest that the claims of these ancient authors is authentic when no evidence can be credibly linked to any of the gods of their books, is to dismiss the success of the scientific method and to replace reason with emotion.

I'm neither trusting ingredients into nature nor adding anything. I'm simply meditating on the big picture. We are free to do so... and we are free to draw different conclusions from the same evidence.

You are looking at the "bigger picture" upon assuming that there is a "bigger picture". You have no evidence that a "bigger picture" exists. You continue to use the term "evidence" to describe things for which you can demonstrate not link for that which you proclaim they support. If you can't demonstrate a link, then it's simply not evidence. If I walk under a ladder, and get hit by a car as I cross the roadway 5 minutes later, is that evidence that walking under ladders produces bad luck? Or is it, perhaps, evidence that if you step out in front of a car, you're likely to get hit? One has a demonstrable link, the other does not.

Then I might find the argument for Allah to be somewhat compelling. If Allah is the name given to the continuous creative force at work in the cosmos, the supreme reality of everything, then I would call it Allah. That said, this wouldn't make my God a fallacy... rather it would be a matter of semantics.

Then one can only conclude that you believe in Allah, because Allah is said, by the Qur'an, to be the creator of everything, just as is your God. However the Qur'an presents some rather obvious differences to the Bible. So if you believe in the claims of the Qur'an, as the book of Allah, then you must dismiss the Bible and the Christian God, as the two provide areas of distinct contradiction.

Things I do not understand merely fuel my curiosity or add to my frustration. What link am I dismissing?

The one that doesn't exist to support your claim that everything and anything is evidence of God. In fact, nothing is evidence of God or science would be pursuing that evidence to see if it leads to God. Some scientist have done exactly this. But so far, science remains completely unassociated with any claims of God because there is no credible evidence for them to pursue. As such, they don't proclaim God exists, they simply do what science should do -- they don't follow non-existent evidence.

From what I've read, it seems most people of that era believed the universe to be geocentric. They had limited information, and the Roman Catholic Church happened to officially subscribe to a popular misunderstanding of the day.

And this misunderstanding arose from biblical scripture.

If "anything and everything is evidence of God", then what purpose would be served by including it in scientific inquiry? I do not suggest that we should violate the scientific method.

Yet in claiming that "anything and everything is evidence of God", you must recognize that you are violating the scientific method. There is no demonstrable link between anything and God. Yet you proclaim directly to the contrary and yet profess to be of scientific mind.

I agree with you. However, I often encounter tangental comments, with regard to theism etc. included in such writing. Many of these tangents are unrelated to the data, yet are deceptively inserted alongside the actual study info. A while back, on poster posted a brilliant essay on the creation of multi-universes (among other things). Unfortunately, the author would occasionally make snide comments about how this proves the non-existence of God etc. His bias may not have effected the data itself, but it certainly made him sound like a kook when he let it show.

The first clue is when anyone, speaking from a scientific standpoint, uses the word "proof". There is no such thing as "proof" in science. There is what you can demonstrate and what you cannot.

Think of God as the name give to the largest possible set. I agree that there are similarities to the idea that "everything came from nothing". That said, I am reasonably certain that everything came from something.

Then from what did your God come?

Correction: God (as understood by Christianity) is more often said to be both physical and metaphysical. Personally, I would argue that no such distinction should be made... as the metaphysical aspect seems only to refer to that which we may or may not ever be able know.

If God is physical, even in part, then science can detect him. Yet they have not. They have looked to the edge of the universe, to the dust of the moon and to the entire Earth believers claim to have been his handi-work. Yet they find no evidence of God.

 

[Niels]

So as you can see, while you are certainly welcome to use whatever word you wish and mean whatever you wish to mean, certainly no one is going to look at your posts and see "reality" when the word you've used is "God".

As I'm clearly not the first to view greater reality as God, I wouldn't be so quick to make the assumption that there aren't others who hold a similar view.

Incidentally, Christianity isn't monotheistic. It's polytheistic.

The concept of the trinity is intended to show that God is more than just physical. This is not equivalent to polytheism.

Not really. Using an upper-case "G" simply implies the Christian God rather than any one of the multitude of other god's more often referred to by a more proper name.

You choose to focus on this detail, while ignoring my point that monotheism is an inherently different animal than polytheism. Why?

You need to understand the difference between not knowing how something might work and knowing that for something to occur in a particular fashion is a violation of what is known.

I was simply explaining that the mere appearance of "magic" (for example: modern technology in the eyes of someone from the past... violating what is known to them) does not necessarily imply that something operates beyond the bounds of reality. Clearly our technology does not operate on magic.

I have to ask; have you ever seen the symptoms of leprosy? Placebo effect certainly does come into play with some disorders such as angina and headache. It's somewhat less likely to believe that one would be fooled by placebo effect when their ailment includes external nodules, skin lesions and epistaxis, (nose bleeds)....

Point taken. I am not very familiar with this particular ailment. The placebo effect doesn't seem plausible when it comes to leprosy.

...It would be interesting, were you not familiar with the scripture for you to serve on a jury in a case where a doctor was accused of malpractice for prescribing exactly this same treatment for a patient suffering with leprosy. What do you think; guilty or not guilty? I think we can fairly safely assume you wouldn't be jumping to his defense. But your desire to believe in God and in the Bible provides you with a very substantial bias.

My answer would depend on when the incident and trial took place. Context is important. Our present medical knowledge is vastly superior to what was considered acceptable back then.

Suppose you were to purchase a book of home remedies, open it up and read the ritualistic treatment from the Bible listed as a home cure for leprosy. Were you unaware of the biblical account, how much credibility would you hold for the authors or publisher of the book?

I would view it as an outdated medical practice... right up there with the notion that a doctor covered with blood must be a good doctor. As such, I believe this leprosy 'remedy' is simply an example of how although the bible was inspired by God, it was written by the hands of men who were a product of their times.

No such thing I'm afraid. There is only reality, no "supreme reality", no "greater cosmic totality". I know people like to think there is something more to reality, and perhaps there is. But until we have credible evidence, any suggestion as to the nature of anything beyond what we know about is nothing but the product of imagination.

I merely find it reasonable to deduce that there is a "greater cosmic totality". Does its existence depend on our knowing what it is? Certainly not. There is much yet to learn.

That said, other than my faith in Christ as the creative force of the universe communicating with man at our level, my basic God concept (apart from my faith in Christ) isn't very different from Spinioza's Pantheism.

You are looking at the "bigger picture" upon assuming that there is a "bigger picture". You have no evidence that a "bigger picture" exists.

My hypothesis is that there is a bigger picture. All current evidence appears to support this hypothesis. As such, I predict that our knowledge will continue to grow. Scientific advances merely provide more evidence.

This hypothesis is falsifiable because perhaps at some point we will reach a stage where there is no further evidence to acquire.

Then one can only conclude that you believe in Allah, because Allah is said, by the Qur'an, to be the creator of everything, just as is your God. However the Qur'an presents some rather obvious differences to the Bible. So if you believe in the claims of the Qur'an, as the book of Allah, then you must dismiss the Bible and the Christian God, as the two provide areas of distinct contradiction.

It is because of faith in Christ (the physical aspect of God communicating on the human level) that I am a Christian. Allah comes close to my notion of the "supreme reality", but it is because of Christ that I turn to God as depicted in the Christian Bible, not the Qur'an.

The first clue is when anyone, speaking from a scientific standpoint, uses the word "proof". There is no such thing as "proof" in science. There is what you can demonstrate and what you cannot.

I agree that we are dealing with evidence (or lack thereof), not proof.

Then from what did your God come?

You probably won't like my answer, but here goes. God is that from which it came.

If God is physical, even in part, then science can detect him. Yet they have not. They have looked to the edge of the universe, to the dust of the moon and to the entire Earth believers claim to have been his handi-work. Yet they find no evidence of God.

From my vantage point, even rocks are evidence of God.

 

[Beastt]

As I'm clearly not the first to view greater reality as God, I wouldn't be so quick to make the assumption that there aren't others who hold a similar view.

Being somewhat familiar with the concept of Spinoza's god, (Pantheism). I'm afraid it's not a very good mix with Christianity. It's also a very poor mix with the God of the Bible. Spinoza's God was what Plato and Einstein suggested as being very close to their concepts of god. Yet Einstein clearly expressed that he did not believe in any kind of personal god. This doesn't mix well with the idea that Christ was God or that he died for your sins. In fact, many see pantheism as closer to atheism than to theism. It doesn't even prescribe to the concept of separate spirts or survival after death. That doesn't leave much of a function for Christ. I'm afraid Christianity and Pantheism are so diversly conceived that it's pretty much impossible to mix the two.

The concept of the trinity is intended to show that God is more than just physical. This is not equivalent to polytheism.

Monotheism indicates a single entity which is the supreme being. In Christianity we even have stories of Christ being a human, or in human form on Earth, while God is not of physical form and performing many of the miracles perceived as being performed by Christ. We even have Christ calling out to God while he is on the cross, pleading to know why God has forsaken him. And while this is suggested, it is also suggested that there is a third, known as the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost, which dwells within people. Then we're told that these three distinctly individual concepts are but one God. It's an interesting set of twists and mis-matched constructs and probably stems from Christianity being being pieceded together from many older religions. But when you provide three names, for distinctly separate parts of a God and suggest that one part of that God can be human and walking the Earth, unfamiliar with the thoughts and actions of the part called "God", what you end up with is polytheism, wrapped in a monotheistic blanket. It's simply not true monotheism.

You choose to focus on this detail, while ignoring my point that monotheism is an inherently different animal than polytheism. Why?

Because while you are correct that monotheism is quite different than polytheism, it is clear to non-Christians familiar with the concepts of both that Christianity, while attempting to sell itself as monotheistic, more closely follows many of the concepts of polytheism. That was a point I had already touched on and I saw no need to pursue it further until I found whether or not you would present any kind of strong objection.

I was simply explaining that the mere appearance of "magic" (for example: modern technology in the eyes of someone from the past... violating what is known to them) does not necessarily imply that something operates beyond the bounds of reality. Clearly our technology does not operate on magic.

Correct. And while our technology doesn't operate on "magic", nor does it violate the understood laws governing physical properties, the claims of the Bible do exactly that. This is one of the things that qualifies them as "miracles" for many people. But of course, they are only written accounts of supposed occurences. Had they actually happened, they would constitute violations of known and understood physical laws. So we're faced with Christianity proclaiming, (rather frequently), that God is not bound by the laws he created for the universe, yet we never observe any of these laws fail to describe the limits of physical interaction. And while we are presented with these two diverse and contradictory concepts, you step in and suggest that God always acts within the limits described in scientific concepts. It seems to be kind of a, "he does but he doesn't", argument.

Point taken. I am not very familiar with this particular ailment. The placebo effect doesn't seem plausible when it comes to leprosy.

So then, based on the evidence, what do you conclude from the Bible's claims that Moses claimed that this supposed, (but false), cure for leprosy came directly from God?

My answer would depend on when the incident and trial took place. Context is important. Our present medical knowledge is vastly superior to what was considered acceptable back then.

Context is important if one assumes what is known of the biblical authors; that they were men, that they wrote a number of texts and that they claimed these texts were God's message. However, if one is to accept their claims, then we have God prescribing a medical treatment and telling Moses that it will cure leprosy, all the while, we understand that what is suggested is nothing more than a superstitious ritual, certainly likely to cause other diseases and ailments but not at all likely to present any kind of cure for leprosy. It should be obvious to anyone reading objectively that something is terribly wrong. We live in a time when we know the difference between a sensical medical treatment and ritualistic mumbo-jumbo. What the Bible claims came from God, directly to Moses, is an example of the latter. And because it is claimed to have come from God, then context and time are not important. God is said to be all-knowing. Therefore, God should know no more and no less now than he did then. Yet we see claims that God prescribed a superstitious ritual rather than a medical treatment and assured Moses that it would cure leprosy. God's medical knowledge should certainly exceed ours. Obviously, what was given fell in line with the concepts of medicine at the time, revealing further evidence that the Bible is but the work of men, who attributed their thoughts and ideas to their concept of God and wrote as though they were writing God's message. But the evidence shows clearly that this cannot be the case. It appears to be very much the kind of situation we found with David Koresh. He probably did think his writings came through him from God. But his belief doesn't constitute fact. Most have little problem accepting that in his case, but fervently deny this as a possibility when looking to exactly the same kinds of claims from men living 2,000 years ago. And they continue to deny this despite the fact that the Bible shows itself time and again, to match ancient, outdated and incorrect concepts.

I would view it as an outdated medical practice... right up there with the notion that a doctor covered with blood must be a good doctor. As such, I believe this leprosy 'remedy' is simply an example of how although the bible was inspired by God, it was written by the hands of men who were a product of their times.

And you believe this to be the case despite the fact that you have evidence for one part and lack evidence for another. The Bible is filled with evidence that it was written by the hands of men. In fact, this is not denied by those who believe in the Bible as a divine text. What is missing is evidence that there is any divinity behind the writing of the Bible. When one bases their beliefs upon the evidence, they are being scientific. When one then includes beliefs for which there is no evidence, it is noteably contrary to science. When one adopts beliefs and holds them as truths despite the fact that those beliefs lie contrary to the evidence, they are practicing denial and dismissing the lessons of science.

I merely find it reasonable to deduce that there is a "greater cosmic totality". Does its existence depend on our knowing what it is? Certainly not. There is much yet to learn.

But that being the case, why is it more reasonable to deduce a "greater cosmic totality" than to deduce a pink and purple bubblegum bubble floating outside the universe as that "greater cosmic totality"? When you begin with such conjecture, devoid of evidence, to support the concept, there is absolutely no limit as to what one can believe and suggest to others as the "greater cosmic totality". We see this demonstrated with the following of Reverend Marshall Applewhite. His "Heaven's Gate" followers obviously accepted his teachings that the Hale-Bopp comet was but a shield to disguise a space craft which would take them to his version of Heaven. These followers even committed suicide as their ticket aboard this craft. The following of Jim Jones in Guyana is another example of what can happen when people abandon the need for credible evidence and simply go off in pursuit of whichever story their desire urges them to believe.

That said, other than my faith in Christ as the creative force of the universe communicating with man at our level, my basic God concept (apart from my faith in Christ) isn't very different from Spinioza's Pantheism.

But in that you believe in Christ as a personal God, you almost completely wipe out the concepts of Pantheism.

My hypothesis is that there is a bigger picture.

Technically, that doesn't qualify as a hypothesis. A hypothesis must be based on scientifically credible evidence. Without such a requirement, a hypothesis would be useless to the scientific community because it could not be tested.

All current evidence appears to support this hypothesis. As such, I predict that our knowledge will continue to grow. Scientific advances merely provide more evidence.

You keep speaking of evidence as though there were evidence for what you proclaim. Yet you continue to suggest that everything is evidence of God. This is nothing but an assumption based upon your own conjecture. It is the product of imagination, not of evidence. Again; if you can't demonstrate a link between your evidence and what you propose it to be evidence of, then what you present simply isn't evidence.

This hypothesis is falsifiable because perhaps at some point we will reach a stage where there is no further evidence to acquire.

"Perhaps at some point"? That's precisely why it isn't a hypothesis. "Perhaps at some point, man will shrink to the size of a bubble bee, sprout wings and go off in search of pollen." Does that lend scientific credibility to the "hypothesis" that man is evolving into an insect?

What you're suggesting isn't a hypothesis. It is conjecture/imagination. And imagination is important, but imagination without true evidence is useless as a tool in unraveling reality.

You probably won't like my answer, but here goes. God is that from which it came.

So we have a contradiction. First you claim that everything came from something. Then you say that God is that from which it came. So you have God coming from God.

From my vantage point, even rocks are evidence of God.

That is because you relieve your "evidence" of the necessity of a demonstrable link to that for which you proclaim it to be evidence.

When we engage in such practices, we find that "everything is evidence of any and every God ever imagined". We can even find that everything is evidence that the Sun will wink out tomorrow and cast the planet into darkness and cold, leading to the death of every organism thereon. That which is not linked to what it is to be proclaimed to be evidence of, simply isn't evidence. And to call it "evidence" is a vast misrepresentation.

I could proclaim that there is a cosmic flea, constantly in search of a blood meal, who created the universe in hopes that it would provide him with the blood he craves. And having made such a suggestion I can claim that the existence of the universe is evidence that this cosmic flea exists. You're simply imagining, (or latching on to someone else's imaginings), of a story for the existence of the universe and then proclaiming that because the universe exists, it is evidence that the story is true.

It's no different than if I tell you that I created every coin in the world. When you suggest that I'm being dishonest, I ask that you reach into your pocket and pull out a coin. "See, you hold the evidence in your hand!"

S'not evidence.

 

[TheGMan]

Spinoza's God was what Plato and Einstein suggested as being very close to their concepts of god.

Spinoza's God is far more Stoic than Platonic. Plato saw God as the source of substance whereas the Stoics saw God as substance itself.

 

[Beastt]

Spinoza's God is far more Stoic than Platonic. Plato saw God as the source of substance whereas the Stoics saw God as substance itself.

And yet we find Plato's name listed among famous pantheists. So obviously there is some diversity among pantheistic beliefs just as there is among Christian beliefs. But there are still limits to what one can properly refer to as pantheism as well as to what one can properly refer to as Christianity. And since the two contrast so highly on some of the basics, it is rather difficult to adopt a belief in any kind of "pantheistic Christianity".

 

[Niels]

Being somewhat familiar with the concept of Spinoza's god, (Pantheism). I'm afraid it's not a very good mix with Christianity. It's also a very poor mix with the God of the Bible. Spinoza's God was what Plato and Einstein suggested as being very close to their concepts of god. Yet Einstein clearly expressed that he did not believe in any kind of personal god.

Perhaps it is a poor mix (Pantheism and Christianity), but it comes closest to my subjective concept of what God should be like, if the title of God is to be worthy of my applying it.

(btw: Plato came along well before Spinoza, whose notion of the Pantheistic god was more naturalistic than that of the classical Pantheists. And didn't Einstein eventually switch over to Deism later in life? I could be mistaken of course. It has been a while since I read about all three of them.)

This doesn't mix well with the idea that Christ was God or that he died for your sins. In fact, many see pantheism as closer to atheism than to theism.

If one is of the opinion that God is like a pink invisible unicorn, then panthiesm will certainly seem closer to atheism. I am of the opinion that God should be nothing like a pink invisible unicorn, and yet I also fancy myself a theist. Hmmm...

But when you provide three names, for distinctly separate parts of a God and suggest that one part of that God can be human and walking the Earth, unfamiliar with the thoughts and actions of the part called "God", what you end up with is polytheism, wrapped in a monotheistic blanket. It's simply not true monotheism.

The trinity is certainly open to interpretation. That said, I view the notion of the trinity as a literary tool used to explain his attributes, yet retain a monotheistic God concept myself.

So we're faced with Christianity proclaiming, (rather frequently), that God is not bound by the laws he created for the universe, yet we never observe any of these laws fail to describe the limits of physical interaction. And while we are presented with these two diverse and contradictory concepts, you step in and suggest that God always acts within the limits described in scientific concepts. It seems to be kind of a, "he does but he doesn't", argument.

I have always suspected there to be naturalistic explanations for biblical miracles. Perhaps that would make me a bit of a heretic to some.

So then, based on the evidence, what do you conclude from the Bible's claims that Moses claimed that this supposed, (but false), cure for leprosy came directly from God?

I am inclined to conclude that an error was made somewhere along the line, and/or that it is not central to the message.

Context is important if one assumes what is known of the biblical authors; that they were men, that they wrote a number of texts and that they claimed these texts were God's message.

Right. And it may very well be God's message... I'm fairly certain that the Bible is not intended to be a medical handbook.

And you believe this to be the case despite the fact that you have evidence for one part and lack evidence for another. The Bible is filled with evidence that it was written by the hands of men. In fact, this is not denied by those who believe in the Bible as a divine text. What is missing is evidence that there is any divinity behind the writing of the Bible. When one bases their beliefs upon the evidence, they are being scientific. When one then includes beliefs for which there is no evidence, it is noteably contrary to science.

Or perhaps more correctly apart from science. I believe the two can peacefully coexist. My faith in Christ may not based on scientific evidence. However, belief in God, particularly a naturalistic one, appears far less dependent on said faith. Without Christ, my God would pretty much be the universe. Better understanding of the universe is within the scope of scientific study.

But in that you believe in Christ as a personal God, you almost completely wipe out the concepts of Pantheism.

Pantheism does not imply a personal God. I realize that. But perhaps I am either a Christian or a Pantheist. On the one hand, the universe seems like a worthy creator. It makes sense to me, and it is a very elegant way of looking at existence. But I also seek that afore mentioned "big picture", a fair and objective position somehow beyond of the folly of humankind. Christ seems to offer this. Not that I will ever attain pure objectivity myself (goodness knows, look at my writing). But many suffer senseless injustice, cruelty and misunderstanding. One would hope that the universe's progeny would be given something on which to base fair and ethical behavior, preferably from the universe itself (Jesus might be the key)... because people are largely vile. And what is the precident for sentience? That we have it now, seems to imply that it came from somewhare (perhaps the universe... it's creative... we're creative... one might even say "in its image") I would have great difficulty coming to grasp with the idea that this is an isolated phenomenon.

What you're suggesting isn't a hypothesis. It is conjecture/imagination. And imagination is important, but imagination without true evidence is useless as a tool in unraveling reality.

There is plenty of evidence to support the observability of the natural world, and it is likely that we are a product of its creation. The evidence points toward this. Imagination/conjecture is important to the formulation of a hypothesis... but perhaps you consider it fanciful to call the the ultimate big picture of reality "God." Besides, we have already left true science behind, and entered the relm of philosophy.

It's no different than if I tell you that I created every coin in the world. When you suggest that I'm being dishonest, I ask that you reach into your pocket and pull out a coin. "See, you hold the evidence in your hand!"

S'not evidence.

True. I agree that the coin in my hand would not be evidence to support the claim that you created every coin in the world any more than my bright-blue pen keeps away tigers.

What I fail to see, however, is why things like Heaven's Gate, the mass-suicide of Koolaid drinkers and random kooks should necessarily be linked to simple belief in God. Do you really think most theists necessarily take such a leave of their senses that they will fall prey to such destructive memes? (This isn't a statement, but a question. I would like to better understand where you're coming from... if you don't mind my asking.)

 

[one love]

Science is a method and has proven many things, such as the Intermediate Value Theorem.

To ask whether itcan prove itself is a bit arbitrary.

 

[Beastt]

If one is of the opinion that God is like a pink invisible unicorn, then panthiesm will certainly seem closer to atheism. I am of the opinion that God should be nothing like a pink invisible unicorn, and yet I also fancy myself a theist. Hmmm...

And the whole point behind the Invisible Pink Unicorn is to show that it is, in every way, just like God. It arose of imagination, holds all of the same character attributes, (should imagination choose), is omnipotent, and indeed, the atheist presentation of a god entity used to show the fallacies and flaws in the standard God concepts.

The trinity is certainly open to interpretation. That said, I view the notion of the trinity as a literary tool used to explain his attributes, yet retain a monotheistic God concept myself.

It seems a lot of biblical inconsistencies with realities are renamed "literary tools" much like the greater part of Genesis. I find it interesting that when describing any other personality, human or otherwise, people simply mention the character traits and that this could certainly be applied to God as well. Nothing about the character of God would change if such a literary tool were not used. But looking upon tales in the Bible, it is obvious that the trinity is other than a literary tool. Were different names not given to the different aspects of God, I could perhaps find the merit to your point. But the Bible goes so far as to proclaim that Jesus was God and yet human, meanwhile God is still in his metaphysical kingdom, in metaphysical form, directing the outcome of the physical manifestation without the physical manifestation even being fully aware of the plans of the metaphysical manifestation. Under such a story, it is clear that what we have isn't the presentation of a literary tool, but of more than one god-character. Christianity is fond of refering to itself as monotheism. But as it doesn't comply with the traits of monotheism, the reference contains little merit.

So then, based on the evidence, what do you conclude from the Bible's claims that Moses claimed that this supposed, (but false), cure for leprosy came directly from God?

I am inclined to conclude that an error was made somewhere along the line, and/or that it is not central to the message.

I find that to be quite interesting. You seem to have skipped right over the most obvious explanations, (Moses lied, the Bible was written by men uninfluenced by other than their own beliefs, God lied), to it was some sort of mistake or not central to the message. How much more obvious could it be that whether central to the message or not, there is an obvious misrepresentation here? Moses made a great many claims that God communicated directly to him and through these communications, Moses passed "God's word" on to the masses. But because medicine and the understanding of disease has advanced so far from where it was in biblical times, we can now look at this claim and instantly see that it is fallacious in nature. The most obvious conclusion from a logistics standpoint is that Moses lied as he had every other time he presented himself to be a messenger of God's word. But believers skip past the most obvious and resort to what some might consider the least probable. And this action is quite predictable. Were they to simply go with the most likely explanation, they would have to admit to the extreme fragility of the entire belief system. Once that is exposed, eternal life, salvation, worship, prayer and all the rest is not far from vapor. And to lose all of that rather than turning momentarily away from logic and reason is contrary to human psychology.

Right. And it may very well be God's message... I'm fairly certain that the Bible is not intended to be a medical handbook.

I'm sure there wasn't any intent that it be a medical handbook. But it wasn't supposed to be a list of God's lies to man either. And yet here we have what appears to be exactly that. Of course there is another extremely good possibility. Moses was being blatantly dishonest. But if he lied about this, then his entire character is called into question. And we can't have that dirty little possibility injected into a belief system so dependent upon the blind acceptance of the claims of ancient men.

Without Christ, my God would pretty much be the universe.

And with Christ, your God becomes a vast contradiction to the nature of the universe as demonstrated from the physical level.

There is plenty of evidence to support the observability of the natural world, and it is likely that we are a product of its creation.

Could you perhaps present a demonstrable example of anything which has been created since the universe came into being, (assuming the universe ever failed to exist)?

What I fail to see, however, is why things like Heaven's Gate, the mass-suicide of Koolaid drinkers and random kooks should necessarily be linked to simple belief in God. Do you really think most theists necessarily take such a leave of their senses that they will fall prey to such destructive memes? (This isn't a statement, but a question. I would like to better understand where you're coming from... if you don't mind my asking.)

I think it's pretty obvious that the psychology is similar. You might wish to refer to the members of Heaven's Gate or Jamestown as "random kooks". But as you begin to expand your observation to other religions, more and more "random kooks" are to be encountered. How about those who believe that if they die in a war against an "infidel", their place in Heaven is secured? What about those who believe that simple man-made food stuffs can actually convert into human flesh? What about those who believe there are multiple levels of heaven and that transitioning from one to another can only occur during a special period once every 200 years? It's easy to draw a line in the sand while assuring that said line doesn't transverse our own toes. It's far less simple to logically show why the line has been drawn just beyond our own beliefs.

 

[TeddyKGB]

can science prove itself?

Not if: 1) science is a formal system; and 2) Godel had his stuff together.