SHEEPEOPLE

[Michael]

Yeah, regardless though, demanding that evidence by observation and experimentation, coming from people who will not go outside their field to do so...leaves them at a loss, and the shame of it, is it's self-imposed.

Indeed.

 

[Michael]

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

I'd say that depends on what standards of evidence are being applied. 'Scientific' standards of evidence do not require empirical cause/effect demonstrations, sometimes just statistical support is all that's necessary. On the other hand, atheists tend to apply a 'purely empirical' standards of evidence to cause/effect relationships as it applies to the topic of God, yet they often misrepresent their personal empirical standard of evidence as the scientific standard of evidence. They are not one and the same standard.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The ultimate hubris of science, that all thoughts are generated by the brain, effectively shuts the door on the discussion of whether there is a spiritual universe to consider.

 

[ananda]

On many debates here the scientific community demands that scientific evidence be given that would prove the existence of God. I have tried to reason and suggest that internal evidence could not possibly prove external matters. I mean, doesn't that make perfect sense? Still, the demand is the same. ...

No, internal evidence cannot prove external matters, but I do not believe that "God" (or the Highest, Source, Nirvana, Buddha, etc.) exists outside of man, but within him. The path towards the Source must be undertaken by individuals each by himself, and I believe it was intentionally designed that way. Internal evidence can only be understood and fully known by the individual, individually.

 

[HitchSlap]

We know.

Knowledge is demonstrable.

 

[HitchSlap]

The ultimate hubris of science, that all thoughts are generated by the brain, effectively shuts the door on the discussion of whether there is a spiritual universe to consider.

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

 

[ScottA]

How would you propose reaching and investigating whatever is "outside of space, time and matter". We can't even determine anything outside of space, time and matter exists.

It's not a matter of refusing to think outside the box. It's a matter of having no reason to believe there is a box, and even if there was, we have no way to investigate outside of it.

Sorry to appear condescending, but that explanation deserves a parental scolding: "Use your imagination!"

Now that that is done. Hugs. We can indeed, and must, think.... Think beyond what is seen, to what things can only be imagined. Do you actually believe that ANY advancement in science EVER happened without doing so? Of course not. So, this topic is no different, in concept, only in matter...because it has none (matter, that is).

Talk a walk there. Venture out. The mind is amazing. It is matter, and time, and space...that are elementary. You can do it!

 

[ScottA]

Knowledge is demonstrable.

The entire world, the universe of space, time, and matter, is the demonstration. But we must leave the demons' behind, if we expect to observe it all objectively. You're holding back. History includes more people who don't hold back, but have the imagination to press on. You can't win if you don't play.

 

[Michael]

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

FYI, that's exactly why I prefer a 'natural' definition/explanation of God.

 

[HitchSlap]

The entire world, the universe of space, time, and matter, is the demonstration. But we must leave the demons' behind, if we expect to observe it all objectively. You're holding back. History includes more people who don't hold back, but have the imagination to press on. You can't win if you don't play.

Enough of the hyperbole.

Knowledge is demonstrable.

 

[HitchSlap]

FYI, that's exactly why I prefer a 'natural' definition/explanation of God.

Definitions are a dime a dozen. Evidence of god/s, now that's priceless.

 

[Michael]

Definitions are a dime a dozen. Evidence of god/s, now that's priceless.

Yes indeed.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The ultimate hubris of science, that all thoughts are generated by the brain, effectively shuts the door on the discussion of whether there is a spiritual universe to consider.

That's not hubris.... That's simply an acknowledgement that we have no evidence for the existence of a "spiritual universe", and therefore have nothing to investigate. Even if there is such a thing, science has nothing to say on the matter.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Sorry to appear condescending, but that explanation deserves a parental scolding: "Use your imagination!"

Now that that is done. Hugs. We can indeed, and must, think.... Think beyond what is seen, to what things can only be imagined. Do you actually believe that ANY advancement in science EVER happened without doing so? Of course not. So, this topic is no different, in concept, only in matter...because it has none (matter, that is).

Talk a walk there. Venture out. The mind is amazing. It is matter, and time, and space...that are elementary. You can do it!

Thinking isn't a problem, people have come up with all kinds of ideas for what the supernatural world, or great beyond, or higher plane, or whatever is. Imagination is not in short supply.

What is in short supply is any evidence showing these are anything more than something that someone made up. That's the problem. How do we investigate the existence of a spirit world or whatnot in actual reality? Nobody has come up with a reliable method for that yet.

 

[Chris B]

I must respectfully disagree.

It is exactly through the study of the Works - where one becomes able to discern Him.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

I also take that to be a key verse, but since I can look at nature and the night sky and see *at the very least* the clear possibility of a cold indifferent universe, with no divine guiding hand, I am left with either that the verse is not correct in its assertion, (with implications following on) or I am a complete moral monster as Paul declares and describes in the subsequent verses.
I did get a speeding ticket, once, sixteen years ago.

Chris

 

[MSBS]

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

Outside the box isn't science. Look to philosophy or religion for that.

 

[Chris B]

I'm just not sure they are willing to accept another consciousness (mind) besides their own.

I was. Demonstrated by me being a committed active theist for many years before I became an atheist.
I clearly had no trouble with the concept, or the possibility.
(Nor, as it happens, the Hindu perspective that there is only one mind, and "individuals" are merely amnesiac or oblivious of their true nature. Not that I believe it is true.)

 

[Chris B]

Thinking isn't a problem, people have come up with all kinds of ideas for what the supernatural world, or great beyond, or higher plane, or whatever is. Imagination is not in short supply.

INVISIBLE PINK UNICORNS!

(Wonderful creatures, whom it would be necessary to invent did they not exist.)
Just one of their many glorious attributes is to show whether or not any offered evidences or reasons for the existence of God could apply just as well to themselves. A celestial hijacking, as it were.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We disagree very little, actually. The point I was addressing, is that in their terms (without considering God), it is not reasonable to examine that limited part of the evidence, and determine ANYTHING. It's just not reasonable.

In that sense we do agree. The Works without the Word leads to incorrect assumptions - just as the Word without the Works leads to incorrect assumptions. Being as I believe the same Author penned them both - they go hand-in-hand in perfect harmony. If harmony is not achieved between the two - then it is those incorrect assumptions in one or the other preventing it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'd say that depends on what standards of evidence are being applied. 'Scientific' standards of evidence do not require empirical cause/effect demonstrations, sometimes just statistical support is all that's necessary. On the other hand, atheists tend to apply a 'purely empirical' standards of evidence to cause/effect relationships as it applies to the topic of God, yet they often misrepresent their personal empirical standard of evidence as the scientific standard of evidence. They are not one and the same standard.

Agreed. But that's probably why 95% of cosmology is ad-hoc assumptions, because they apply scientific principles of evidence only when it comes to God, and leave them out when it comes to their cosmology.