God does not exist

Tikoo:

Remember the womb?! For relations sake?! Do you take me for a veritable vessel of forgetfulness?! :-D

 

fffff, our Dejavu of phantasmagorical finesse has phenomenal awareness .

vvshOO !!

 

Clever, but it misses the point. My point was that "science", most often equated with natural science, is very good at applying rigorous methods to testable, refutable hypotheses but not much help in dealing with the Big Questions concerning ultimates or even the little ones concerning the routine decisions we face in daily life. You brought up "political science" which you suggest (although don't really come right out and say) is inadequate. And I'd agree with that. I think you are incorrect that political scientists address the question who is the better candidate by invoking scientific techniques. Instead, they publish "small bore" articles on variables influencing voter behavior, public opinion, political decision-making, etc. We learn more and more about less and less. All of those studies can be interesting and informative to other social scientists and to professional politicians, and can be helpful in predicting or at least explaining who is likely to win. But they, like the "hard scientists" they imitate, don't (as political scientists)take on questions like who is the "better" candidate. That's up to us to figure out on the basis of the information available, our ability to size people up and sift through the smoke screen of double talk, and our (gasp) values. (And we don't really need much science to tell us Rosanne isn't going to win). There are some people who think Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann or Sara Palin would make wonderful Presidents and others (like me) who think they would be disasters. Political science won't help us much, but judgment can, if it is informed by facts and careful analysis. My point was that "science" tends to focus its attention on matters that lend itself to scientific analysis, and that many of the questions that are important in our lives don't fall into that category. To address those, we have a choice of flipping coins, following our "fantasies" or making informed judgements based on less than scientific but still substantial, credible evidence.

On matters concerning religion, there are some people (like the OP) who suggest that we must "prove" everything we believe in or else be classified as believing in fantasies. I can't prove that Sara, Newt, and Michelle would be terrible presidents. Apparently, lots of people, including some scientists, thought otherwise at the Republican primaries. But I still fervently believe they would be disasters, and I don't think that's fantasy or just an opinion on a par with those of the Tea Party. No one ever answers my question: "What do you mean by proof?" Scientific proof, courtroom proof, probable cause, substantial evidence? And would we be willing to apply that standard to the decisions we face in life or else be viewed as living in a fantasy world"? I'm opting for opinions or bets based on the available credible evidence, informed by experience, values, intuition and good judgment. That would leave out Big Foot, Santa Clause, and Sara Palin.

 

I don't believe I missed the point, I believe your analogy is poor when used to make a parallel with religious faith.

We base informed decisions on which canidate we should choose (if we are open minded enough and not instilled to favor one party over the other VIA family and stuff) largely based on expert analysis. we verify canidates claims on information given to us by experts in political science and various other fields with verifiable information. So political science is not only important to other social scientists and political politicians but very much important to the general public as well on how to inform their decision just as a paper on the rotation and axis of the planets and Sun Is important for an individual to make an informed decision on whether they think the Earth revolves around the Sun or vice versa. I didn't say political science was inaqueadate however I realize that in our system of politics several other factors such as monetary contributions, values, and canidate charm certainly will factor into electing a canidate. The point being that I am crediting scientific methods for having a large influence on modern day politics, whereas you weren't granting it any and politics certainly moved quite a bit away in our culture at least from rulers being chosen by having a believed holy bloodline (unless you're an illuminati conspiracist) and ability to directly pronounce divine orders to politicians having to endure more rigourous testing and attain certain qualifications for their positions.

As far as the proof thing, the inability to provide any type of 'proof' is perhaps as frustrating to the atheist or agnostic as no one answering your questions, things like listing the bible as 'proof' I think is very insufficient to many non believers considering when it was written and how much of it has been shown to be dubious.

 

Can you name a political scientist whom you or anyone else used to verify a claim relevant to your vote? Of course a conscientious voter relies on as much expert analysis as (s)he can get hold of, but doesn't wait around for scientific proof, which will not be forthcoming. As I said, political science can help us understand who is likely to win, and why. But how is that important to our decisions? And how on earth do you think political science played a role in moving us away from hereditary monarchy? Political science can analyze how and why that happened, but the phenomenon was the result of social forces. Political philosophy played a role, but that's a different animal altogether from political science.

And I certainly agree that science is important in evaluating certain factual claims made by fundamentalists: planetary rotation, the age of the earth and universe, evolution, etc. When religion makes such claims, it is certainly open to scientific study and refutation. As I've said in previous posts, our beliefs must be consistent with logic and the available evidence. However, if we need to wait until science has definitive answers to cosmic questions, we'll still be waiting on our death beds. Meanwhile, what do we do? Sit on our hands, or take a chance, based on our informed judgments? My point concerned the insistence of scientific "proof" for our beliefs. I rest my case.

 

Hmmm. I think my previous posts raised a point you might respond to. I asked what do you mean by proof? Does substantial evidence count, or are you talking scientific or courtroom proof? Do you think demanding proof, as opposed to a rational basis, for of all of our (and your) opinions is a workable way to make our way through life? And if we can't prove who is the better candidate in an election, but just have some pretty good reasons for favoring one or another, do we have to suspend judgment and stay home?

 

Okie:

To those who don't believe in god, the 'chance' you're taking looks like you're sitting on your hands oke. You may be very busy believing in god, but if god is your "answer", you must expect that it will be asked where god is, no? :-D

 

Why God is everywhere! Seriously, God for me is a working hypothesis I accept as a "joyful bet", not inconsistent with logic and evidence and based on my experience, judgment, intuitions and evidence provided by a various scientists and philosophers--hardly "proof" but in my judgment "substantial evidence" to go on until I'm persuaded otherwise. God (specifically Jesus) is the foundation for my sense of meaning in life and my morality, and so far I'm satisfied with the results. So in that sense I'm not sitting on my hands until the evidence comes in. I'm following an action principle. And seriously, I see God everywhere, especially at WalMart.

 

What work do you expect from it that you are so far satisfied?

 

Talks a good game anyway.

 

i must say as a long term meditator (fully enclosing a clause in my new 9000 word personal opinion disclosure only disclaimer) i find even the concept of "god" a product of psychology and physiology.
The direct experience of “reality” is the mind fully awake with no thought at all,not even the thought of no thought.
this basic reality pervades everything….some people call it god God.

 

Okie:

So god is not a person? Or god is every person? Is god the greeter at walmart or the cashier? Is god the customer? Is god just the purchase product? We can bet our lives on anything, all the way to their very end.

thedope:

Come on thedope, you know my awareness is as phenomenal as anyone elses.

 

yes...unfortunately god is everything and everywhere. Whaaat..was that the "end of history"...hope not.

 

inkgal:

Where is the believer in god who can show me they would love a god on earth and not just in the easy-bake heaven of their conception?!

Why are you not god inkgal? What did you do to displease Him?! lol

 

Indeed all exchanges of energy are equal. You talk a good game anyway!

 

Equal to themselves you mean. Talk is talk...

 

yeah..the interlect just will not die..will it....if god is everything and everywhere....god is not such a nice guy ay....god can give your body life as a drink of water...or crush you beneath a 3 meter wave. sorry what was the question?
oh..i remember..."Why are you not god inkgal" leading question..lol

 

Well there is jive talkin, baby talk and pillow talk. A vow of silence says a lot.
A joke is probably more welcome than an obituary.

Take it like a man that I enjoy talking with you!

 

Inkgal:

Do you want it to?!

thedope:

:-D You don't think I don't, do you? I'm much too human to take it like a god.

 

(fully enclosing a new clause in my new 9000 word personal opinion disclosure only disclaimer) link to follow….watch this space.
do i want “the intellect to die?” i would like the intellect to operate in perspective to the absolute mind.

i mistake often the intellect for the mind and elevate this consciousness to a position of ultimate reality.
Then I run into feeling not so great.

In my more lucid intelligent moments i experience the intellect as a series of suppositions often having or involving several strata, or levels of problems resolutions and multy layering of psycho/verbal proposals and pseudo answers.

My mind is like a busy train station......so basically what im trying to say is that if the intellect was in perspective, or seen in a broader context of of consciousness and the universe I would be much better off.

I love the Buddhist tradition. They have allot to say about this issue and the illusion of the intellect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism

Now there’s Buddah…he must have been pretty smart..would like to chat with him.

that guy must have had a very intelligent configuration of consciousness and physiology.

But I seem to be avoiding the supposition that I am god?? Well you see I will paint this picture.

Quantum mechanics supposes a huge galaxy of time and space… theres this little corner of it that has parameters and sides and edges.i propound there is a “local” “me”…but than there is the rest of the universe which is hypothetically also me and I surmise that it is also hypothetically you. Plus everyone else and every thing else.
i offer the thought that it is something I share with everyone but I am are usually in an illusion as to how important or significant I am.
Really im just a tiny spec of dust in a huge universe.
But what about frued..opps just slipped again….lost my ego….temporally ..sorry bout that.
Enough of me…..time to go out.

Cheers ink8290