Can God cure as well as kill? Should God kill or cure?

Yeah, the word God will tweak proponents of both sides of the issue. On one side we have those who read the literature (Bible) and condense it down to its basic tenets, and reasonably conclude that the validity of the tenets fail the smell test in no uncertain terms. And on the other side we have those who hear the word God and mistakenly believe that their experiences concerning their alleged god are transferable to those who have not had such experiences, and who then attempt to confront and straighten out those who condemn the god.

But what it all comes down to has nothing to do with religion or the Bible. It's always been a matter of personal opinion influenced by cultural-sanctioned archetypes.

By the way, consensus is not science. Science requires only one experimenter to be right, which means that he or she has produced results that can be duplicated, and are verifiable according to references in the real world. Consensus is more political. Actual science is not.

 

You can call it science if you want, but if we value science as a source of reliable knowledge, I wouldn't call it that until it's undergone peer review and been published in a reputable science journal.

And on the third side, we have those who keep an open mind and form tentative conclusions on the basis of their best judgment in light of the available evidence, including science, experience, reason, intuition and study of comparative religion.

I think that statement is too vague and platitudinous to be useful. Ideas about God are obviously a matter of personal opinion, but to what extent was the opinion the product of outside influences: parents, peers, teachers, religious leaders, etc.? Typically, people have the same religious views as their parents, but sometimes they don't. In complex, pluralistic societies like ours, a number of variables are at play, including behavioral conditioning, cognitive constraints, and existential anxieties, and are shaped by societal needs for order, leader and priestly needs for legitimation, and elite needs for protection. That assumes its all a matter of psychological and social determinism. But do we just assume that God is simply a human creation, instead of vice versa. That may be your conclusion, but it isn't everybody's, and it's not very scientific. Numerous scholars and eminent scientists take God more seriously than that.

 

Those Danish winters can do that to you.

 

I didn't call anything science. You said science is also based ultimately on opinion--i.e., the consensus judgements of other scientists based on rigorous testing of systematically gathered empirical evidence. However, the result of empirically gathered evidence based on rigorous testing is neither opinion nor consensus. A hypothesis is tested and found or be true or not true.

As to your second point, I agree that you may form tentative conclusions based on your best judgment, given the available evidence. However, in the case of the god, the available evidence remains in the realm of opinion and personal experience, neither of which can be measured.

 

Perhaps a better term would be judgment. We can't get past the human factor in making the ultimate determination that a finding is valid beyond a reasonable doubt in the judgment of scientific peers. All published scientific research must get thought the filter of peer review, which is the judgment of humans--professionally trained humans, to be sure, instilled in norms of objectiviy. ButThomas Kuhn has called our attention to the fact that even such distinguished men suffer from biases, and have difficulty accepting findings that don't fit prevailing paradigms.
https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2014/12/paradigms-and-prejudice?r3f_986=https://search.yahoo.com/
Thomas Kuhn: the man who changed the way the world looked at science
Self-Perpetuating Paradigms: How Scientists Deal With Unexpected Results | ScienceBlogs
The scientists look at the findings and decide whether or not the methodology and evidence warrant a conclusion that the study is valid and reliable. If they don't think so, it's not likely to be published, and if they think it is acceptable it will be. And there have been some pretty questionable findings making the rounds on these forums based on studies that were methodologically flawed enough that one would wonder how they got published.

That would be relevant if I were making a claim that it was anything else. But I don't accept the logical positivist implication that only measurable facts count as knowledge. Not even A.J. Ayer believes that any more. Obviously, when I'm stating a belief in God based on an educated bet, I'm not making a claim to absolute truth of any kind. I go by the substantial evidence test used for making administrative decisions, substantial evidence being enough evidence to persuade a reasonable person even though other reasonable persons might reach the opposite conclusion--a win-win for both of us.

 

Persuade a reasonable person of what? And why?

Why is judgment a better term? Judgment implies the possibility of "otherwise." Consensus implies the possibility of "otherwise." Therefore, both judgment and consensus--when it comes to validating the god--can offer only possibilities. The best you can say is that there is the All-That-Is. Those who are determined to set something outside of, and distinct from, All-That-Is expose their predisposition to place even the unknown into a hierarchical arrangement; that is, they apply finite principals to infinite qualities--a lost cause right from the start.

Be the part of the All-That-Is that you are. All is one. It is pointless to be like a cell in the foot forever seeking to understand the brain or the heart or the eye in the belief that your wholeness rests elsewhere. Love your neighbor as yourself. Nothing else you've read will add anything to that. It is pointless to fixate on who said it, why they said it, who their dad was, what their dad wants from us, etc. etc.

 

Of God's existence , of course. That's what we're talking about, isn't it? Why? Because it is the established standard of proof defined in law for the substantial evidence test., which I submit is appropriate for everyday decisions involving evidence, or at least the one I choose to use.

Judgment is a better term because it denotes the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions, which is what scientists, for the most part, try to do. Science doesn't grow on trees or come down to us from Mount Sinai. Wonderful as it is, it depends on human judgments about methods and data.

You lost me with the gobbledygook about the All-that-is? Are you denying the possibility of transcendence? If so, I'll respond with your own terminology: it's your opinion.

 

Now we get to the crux of your position. You've read a book whose contents include the story of a thing called a god, and you want to persuade others of the existence of the alleged god. You should ask yourself why you want to do that. Anyway, in your failing effort to validate this thing called god, you've resorted to using consensus, as if the judgement of those who share your personal stake in the existence of the god has any weight. But the only thing that's really been proven is that fans of the idea of a god will settle on any means, including a legalistic-type preponderance of the evidence, to prove that they're not deluded; that they have come to a sensible conclusion.

Oh, and by the way, I have no problem with transcendence.

Also, I believe you know what I mean when I say that you've set something outside of, and distinct from, All-That-Is. You just don't take kindly to those who point out your predisposition to place even the unknown into a hierarchical arrangement like you do with human authority. The god you've read about in that book has been properly relegated to the realm of myth, and you know that. It is no more real than a Mr. Potato Head. Rather than let go of it, you've simply decided to re-accessorize it. But it's still a child's toy.

 

Seems to me you're a little confused. I mentioned the word "God" in response to a question concerning hell raised by another poster who has been making wild accusations about Chrisitians and their God. When I mentioned God, you asked me to clarify what I meant, which I did, and we were off and running--as has happened on at least two previous similar occasions when the word God came up. I don't consider my job to proselytize for my religion, nor have I tried to do so. You should ask yourself why you want to portray me as doing so. "consensus" seems to be another trigger word for you. As I recall , I used it in the context of scientific consensus, which is a legitimate concept. I never tried to use it to validate "this thing" I call God. You asked me, several times, to explain my concept of God, and I obliged. Your following statements are demonstrably false:" At no point did I purport to put forward a belief in God that others should accept. I stated the basis for my own belief, in response to your inquiry.

No, your muddled expression is still unclear. By All -That-Is do you you just mean the material universe? Do you exclude ideas, ideals and spiritual qualities? As for the notion that "The god you've read about in that book has been properly relegated to the realm of myth, and you know that. It is no more real than a Mr. Potato Head." [/QUOTE}Really. Where did you hear that? A Pew survey of world religions tells us that 84% of people around the globe identify with a religious group: 5.8 billion altogether.The Global Religious Landscape In the U.S., it's 80%. Such eminent scientists as Freeman Dyson, Francis Colins, John Polinghorne, and Paul Davies. The Pew Research Center for the People & The Press found that just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power 33% of scientists say they believe in God.Famous Scientists That Believe In God

Conversing with a curmudgeonly atheist bigot is not the way I want to spend my time. Goodbye.

 

I don't think it's possible to define God. One person has one idea; another person has another idea.

For argument's sake, let's say that there is "something," and this something can be called God. I'm curious as to what people's opinions are as to what single quality this entity must possess. Love? Omnipotence? What?

 

I think being or existence would be one attribute essential to God for there to be any other qualities.

 

Oh don't misunderstand me. I'm only showing you the basis for your idea that there is a god. And, as the above clearly indicates, the best you can conjure up is an appeal to authority concerning what is real and what is not. Snake oil indeed. There's one born every minute.

Here's an analogy to help you understand. A long time ago, there were some people who attempted to explain what they had no way of knowing. Nevertheless, they used their human reasoning and came up with something to fill in the big blank. They speculated that a great wizard who lived in an unreachable cave under an unknown mountain was responsible for all that is. And then they proceeded to describe the nature of this wizard--its likes and dislikes and its feelings about things. Being primitive in their understanding, they even declared that this wizard desired that people take animals, kill them, and offer up the bloody corpse to him in return for being let off the hook for breaking one or more of his rules, one of which was that they had to love him with all their heart, mind, and soul.

As the centuries passed, some people came to understand that the writings of those people of the past were based on their limited human perspective and their penchant for assigning hierarchical positions to everything imaginable; hence the creation of the wizard. But instead of discarding their belief in the wizard, some people (yourself included) simply assigned more humane characteristics to this fictional wizard to make him more appealing to their own sensibilities.

In short, you recognize that past depictions of an assumed being were total bullshit, but when it comes to you coming to terms with the fact that that which has been foolishly depicted is also bullshit.

 

It may not be an entity. I associate creation with God.

 

By which you mean God must be sentient or have a sense of being? Because in the hypothetical, we're already taking for granted that something exists which can be called God.

So even if the Big Bang was it, the moment of creation, you think this moment is significant enough to be likened "God"?

 

I would say the big bang isn't God, its caused by God. Maybe it's part of God, but I don't think its all there's to It.

 

It definitely seems significant enough though, wouldn't you agree?

 

Bla bla bla.

All Christians are literalists if they believe in a literal Jesus, which they say they do.

Regards
DL

 

Probably more awe-inspiring than I can fathom, so perhaps, but I still feel like God needs to be sentient somehow. Maybe I just like the notion of talking to some kind of alien lifeform.

 

Seems a bit too simplisticly put. Classic GIam