Revealing study about scientific research not getting its required double-checking

Reasonable and - NOT! (Re: Research not getting its required double-checking)

Dear Marc and V-8 Buick social observers,

These ideas need a lot of work, but I think it is enough to show that perhaps we can come up with a unified view that makes scientific and religious experiences a seamless part of one realilty.

I think we need to be honest and accept that not merely human experience but everything that science reveals too us leaves to a "mediocre at best" and "really horrible at worst" sense of the world. Even when nature "works normally" - it is a horrible place where starvation, death, and suffering are commonplace. A mass extinction is really, really bad. The notion of a parasite provides the correct sort of feedback relations. Things are never good, they can get worse, but the parasite won't act such that it destroys itself - so things muddle on.

Back on the other key topic associated with this thread, there was interesting news about green energy:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_29048835/altamont-pass-controversial-wind-turbine-company-blamed-bird

Quoting from the article:

If it is so difficult to operate a wind farm that companies give up, will there be the wind power that California and other areas are counting on to fill caps in the electrical supply?

Edouard

 

Re: Reasonable and - NOT! (Re: Research not getting its required double-checking)

I guess we're going to have to take a page out of Anthony Fokker's book and teach the birds synchronization...there's just no pleasing these groups, is there? Do these idiots figure when they hit a light switch it just kind of comes on magically?

 

Re: Revealing study about scientific research not getting its required double-checkin

"I'm trying to understand the phenomena of Christianity from rational and scientific point of view."
That is not possible. That is the mistake 90% of Christians make. There are only two religions, rational religion or revelational religion. Either you are creating god in your image or you are letting God create you in His image. Every religious belief ever falls into one of these two categories.

That you have to figure out for yourself. Either we create our own religion or we allow God to show us.


People don't want to acknowledge there is a God because that interferes with "I will do what is righteous in my own eyes". We have been trying to create morality with our own laws and the world just keeps cycling between "dark ages"; which by the way we are headed back into.

Mikey

 

Out of the box. (Re: Research not getting its required double-checking)

Dear Mikey and V-8 Buick armchair philosophers,

Unfortunately, you type much faster than you can read. Take the time to read this essay before making your assumptions about what I'm trying to do.

http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.php?291831-The-Gloomy-Quest-for-Hope-Christmas-2014

In it I go to a lot of trouble to reject the core assumption of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic faith: an omnipotent, infallible, and benevolent God. What I end up with looks a lot more like a ancient Greek system where all the other gods vanish and Jesus stands alone.

So I'm definitely "outside of the box" and while I do believe that it explains the "phenomena" of Christianity, it does nonetheless undermine the essential beliefs of Jews, Christians, Muslims and as far as I can tell every other sort human religion out there.

Edouard

 

Re: Out of the box. (Re: Research not getting its required double-checking)

Edouard,

You obviously are passionate and put much time into your thoughts. I enjoy reading them and understanding people. I read your essay and still stand by what I wrote. I will fight for your right to believe whatever you want about any scientific or theological idea you want. You must do the same for me however. You are free to think "outside the box". You can rationalize anything you want; that's what religions do. People make "religions" out of most anything and believe they have a path to enlightenment which may or may not be true. All I'm saying is there are only two paths concerning God/god one can take. You've chosen yours and I'm not condemning you for it just saying I believe in the other path.

Mikey

 

Is this "normal" ? (Re: Research not getting its required double-checking)

Dear Mikey and V-8 Buick armchair "theologians"

Sorry, but to claim that there two paths is already a matter that needs to be proven. If there is something that clear over the long history of civilization, humanity hasn't been aware of your dichotomy for at least 20,000 years. If what you are saying truly matters, how did the human race blunder for so long before finally discovering the truth about faith?

There is a joke that really speaks volumes of our predicament in the modern world:

A man feels just awful for a long time and finally he goes to see a doctor. The doctor promptly diagnoses the man with some sort of ailment. The man then sincerely thanks the doctor say: Oh thank you! Im so glad that I wasnt supposed to feel this!
​

The uncomfortable truth is that the two dominant world views of the west doggedly insist that we truly are supposed to feel like this.

The religious perspective of all monotheistic faiths insist that we have been equipped with all that is necessary to have that relationship with God that will give our lives purpose and fulfillment. So if our lives dont work out, we have no one to blame but ourselves. As I look at the world and my personal life, this looks far more like blaming the victim than advice that will constructively lead humans to a peaceful and happy coexistence.

The atheist perspective is even more grim. All behavior: good, bad, or ugly is natural - what else could it be? Humans are biological systems and their behavior is generated by that biology - science offers us nothing else. So at some level: mass murderers, adultery, political corruption, and so on, is simply the natural outcomes of humans in the society we have created. Worse, science cannot even provide us with useful criteria to find a lifelong spouse. What hope do we have in selecting a president who truly is best qualified to deal with the problems of today? Science doesnt know how to make humans happy and for an atheist there is no where else to turn for understanding. Thats about as hopeless as it gets.

What Im saying is very disconcerting, but I think it is brutally honest. We arent supposed to feel like this. As I see it, it is going to take what amounts to cosmic revolution to establish a world were humans can be truly happy. Okay feel free to disagree with me, but personally Im greatly relieved that Im not supposed to feel as I do in my sufferings to day in and day out.

Edouard

 

Re: Is this "normal" ? (Re: Research not getting its required double-checking)

You are missing my point and that is the point. The world does not want to admit there is a God who created everything. No timeline in this discussion because it is not possible to prove really. God will let you prove He exists but He will also let you prove He doesn't exist. He leaves that up to you, in fact He commands it. I can't prove God exists.

Because people want to be in charge and rule themselves God bows out and you have rational religion. People who believe in rational religion come from every society, every race, every religion. every belief system. They want to make their own rules.

Revelational religion are those few who actually know God exists and have communication with Him. They get revelational knowledge from God and follow His lead.

That said, many claim to hear form God and then do something contrary to His word proving they are making up their own god in a rational religion. You have never met God, it is not something one forgets or dismisses.

Again you have the right to believe what you want and write what you want with more words written by others to back you up but I can't conjure up God to prove Him to you so you are on that journey by yourself. The problem with people is they know when they meet God they have to change and they don't want to. But I can tell you this. When you truly want to meet Him you will know the truth.

"Truth Is Discovered Not Made"

I truly enjoy these discussions.

Mikey

 

Does God want this ? (Re: Research not getting its required double-checking)

Dear Mikey and V-8 Buick sufferers, . .

Sorry, you are missing my point and it is a very difficult point to miss if your eyes are really open. If God really created everything, did God create cancer so that thousands upon thousands of typical people would die horrible agonizing deaths? Did God create sexually transmitted diseases to punish us because sex is enjoyable? Genesis tells how God punishes Eve for being tempted by the devil, but the account doesnt say that the devil was punished at all for tempting Eve - was it truly Eves fault and Eves fault alone?

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all exist and we cannot understand why. Is that what God really wants? Before your God, people coexisted with different religious systems and in amazing harmony. Under the Ptolemaic dynasty, the Greek kings of Egypt worshiped Greek gods while the Egyptian people worshiped the old Egyptian gods. Whatever friction existed was minor compared to the religious tensions of today. Rome conquered Greece, but they literally acquired most of the Greek gods. Once more with minimal religious friction. Is this God wanting the current conflicts instead of the harmony of old?

I dont have a problem with any of this. Jesus doesnt want any of the things I just listed. Since Jesus as I understand him isnt the all-powerful creator, he isn't the architect of our world.

What Im much more concerned about is what this God that the Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in. Is our world that God actually wants? Given the way things look, Im deeply worried that our world has and continues to look like it does precisely because God wants it this way. I cant swallow a world like that. If you can, then I suppose this is another point where we have to differ.

Edouard

 

Re: Does God want this ? (Re: Research not getting its required double-checking)

Whoa. Kinda surprised at this. I think you made it clear that you don't believe in Christianity, but it seems like you don't understand it either. I thought you'd studied it quite a bit, but you don't seem to understand the doctrines of free will, creationism, the trinity, or a lot of fairly basic Christian concepts. The more I open my eyes, the more I realize that God is behind EVERYTHING we do, know, and see.

Yes, He created humans to have "human nature", including the bad side. He also created a Heaven without many of the "down" sides that you talk about. Unfortunately for us, Earth is not Heaven and there are bad things here.

Jesus didn't ever say he didn't want humans to be humans. Yes, there are things he advocated for and approved of, and things he specifically disapproved of. But if you understand free will, you'll understand that God wants us to CHOOSE to love him. And he says/acknowledges that only a minority of people actually will. And although God knows the future, and the choices we will make, doesn't mean that they aren't still OUR choices to make as imperfect humans. He also made it perfectly clear that humans cannot be perfect - that's not the world where we live.

God did create a world without cancer and disease and agony, that world is Heaven. But he also created a world for humans, where we all will die (sometimes peacefully and sometimes agonizingly and sometimes through war).

God created a world in which multiple religions exist, but he also came to Earth in the form of a man to tell us more. Whether we choose to be open to that is a choice that we all make for ourselves.

God transcends all known dimensions (space and time) and it seems obvious to me that he holds it all together. Yes, we are learning more about nuclear physics and string theory and the biology of cancer and the speed of gravity and ..., but He also created the universe and designed all of the "rules" of physics. He decided to make gravity, chemistry, photons, Newtonian mechanics, etc. - and way too many humans think that because we are learning more about these things excludes the existence of God (but actually proves it).

God didn't promise lives without pain or agony or war. He actually created a world in which all of these things exist. Why would He create an imperfect world which precedes our time in a perfect world? I can only speculate, but my guess is that God wants us to choose to love him. Just a guess, I'm not egotistical enough to say I can understand the thinking process of someone who has the ability to create and maintain an entire universe. And your essay does not prove the non-existence of God whatsoever - it just says how you don't understand him. It's okay, I don't understand him either - but I appreciate the completely amazing things he has done and created.

Here's a thought to start you down the trail: Let's assume you are six feet tall. And let's assume the universe is an infinite number of feet across. What percentage of the universe do you occupy? Oops! That would be zero, since 6 * 1/∞ = 0. So where does that leave us, since 6th grade math just proved that we don't exist? In the hands of an all-knowing, all-powerful God of whom we barely know anything about, who created a universe and world that we really don't understand. You can either have faith in God and all of his wonders, or you can try really really hard to doubt Him. (Faith = believing in something without having all of the proof... but to me, the evidence is incredibly overwhelming).

God and sciences are not mutually exclusive whatsoever - but the incorrect assumptions included in our "science" are incompatible with both. Creationism vs. evolution is a historical argument, not a scientific one (i.e. cannot be verified by the scientific method) - yet people will believe in "evolution" as the scientific perspective. If you let science be what it is, trying to make sense of the things we observe, then there is NOTHING incompatible between the Bible, God, and "science". The problem comes when we consider scientific hypotheses (i.e. creationism) to be a scientific conclusion, and I think you would agree that is a problem.

Eduaord, I said before that I would love to sit down for several hours and chat. That invitation still stands. The answers to your questions about God, Eve, and that we live in a "human" world aren't that complicated, once you wrap your head around them. But unfortunately this forum requires sitting here typing and frankly what could be covered in a few hours of interactive conversation can't be easily summarized in the time & space that I have to address them here. The more I try to figure out God, the more I am sure that there is no question he exists.

-BC

 

Can everybody win? (Re: Research not getting its required double-checking)

Dear Bob and V-8 Buick armchair philosophers,

Okay, Im make a fair deal with you. Ill believe everything you have written here - as soon as you convince Professior Hans Sluga of the Philosophy department of the University of California, Berkeley that all this is true.

In case you dont recall that episode in my life: he is the professor who in the most sweetest and innocent voice declared at the start of a course I absolutely had to pass that: I intend to demonstrate that the notion of God is - incoherent!

Sadly, in my old age, I have to confess that Hans Sluga is correct. The concept of God that you are proposing cannot exist - but hold on a second before you jump. Nonetheless, your experience of such a God is real and genuine.

Cant possibility be true? Im not sure of that. For starters, what you are calling God is a kind of extreme totality. One way to understand that is as a kind of everything, and thats precisely how the Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza described God. Spinoza characterizes God as the whole behind the universe as as such, his argument for the existence of God is thought to be valid.

Modern philosophers interpret Spinoza as not being really religious, but perhaps they are failing to grasp a key insight. Christians insist that an infinite God becomes finite in the man Jesus. Professor Sluga will roll his eye if you suggest such a thing. However, suppose Jesus can by something essential to his nature and position in the universe - cause the universe to become humane. Now the experience of this infinite and benevolent God is very real. The mechanism is different, but your faith is preserved and the experiences you describe are very real. The metaphysics that Im struggling with suggest that the experience of Christianity is very real and the salvation it offers is equally real. Nonetheless, it is possible to get confused about that salvation in dangerous ways.

I had a thought today of how perhaps we can understand the major divisions between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Two of these traditions reject the idea that God could be incarnate. Now reason would insist that either God became incarnate as Jesus or not. There is no reasonable way it could be both - right? Well before the crucifixion, peoples lived side by side with clearly different paths to hope. Why cant Judaism, Christianity, and Islam represent parallel but legitimately different paths to hope?

The analogy that occurred to me was that Christianity insists that Jesus shall return to the Earth to bring about an earthly paradise. Judaism and Islam dont have this strong notion of retaking the earth to make it paradise. Perhaps their notion of hope doesnt involve the earth. Suppose for the sake of argument that Judaism will take the planet Venus and make a paradise out of that and Islam will reclaim Mars as their paradise. It could be another planet or another parallel universe, it is just difference that is important.

In that situation, the path that Jews and Muslims need to take would be radically different from Christians. In that case, attempting to follow Christian doctrine might not get you to Mars or Venus, and if Jewish and Muslim hope is truly different, then reaching the Earth might not be an option. Okay, this is pure speculation, but might be possible that Christians are Christians because of their particular relationship with Jesus, while these other faiths have a different kind of interaction with the universe that absolutely requires that they follow their experience of God that is something they cannot encounter directly. Failure to follow the Jewish or Muslim views on what God is will prevent them from reaching their experience of hope.

There is one fly in the ointment, but it isnt so difficult to overcome. All three monotheistic faith traditions insist they are the only legitimate path to hope and the other two are wrong. However, all three traditions also insist that there is Satan and Satan does deceive humans. Moreover the battles between faith have results in the sort of extreme evil that we would associated with Satan - coincidence?

Okay, Ill be the first to admit it - pure conjecture. Still, it is an attempt to insist that human spirituality is very real - right down to the promised salvation, without insisting that a huge fraction of human beings (in the present and past) are wrong. If the only way you can claim to have salvation is to insist that lots and lots of humans are misguided about spirituality - you face a very serious credibility problem.

Edouard

 

Re: Revealing study about scientific research not getting its required double-checkin

check this out >> Laminin:

There are many tangents this thread can continue to go down. Here are a few statements for further thought. These mainly target Christianity.

1.) If your premise about your existence is that you (your soul) is eternal (your body is not). Then your inherent beliefs should reflect this in an internal struggle to seek eternal things. (call it spirituality, metaphysical or other similar categorical definitions). To attempt to comprehend and explain how Jesus had or those during Second Coming are resurrected is silly - we can not possibly fully understand. But it is fun to explore how the universe is put together and can be controlled.

2.) If you were to classify God and that is God (capital G) then how can one truly define God? - how does a finite being perceive an infinite being? ... the answer may reside with your soul/spirit the metaphysical.

3.) Following up on number 2.) if Jesus is claimed to be who he is (the I AM) then how can you constrain His existence as so many have done particularly in this thread? Likewise, How can you reasonably deny people's observation of what Jesus had done? You can pick at words in scripture all you want but what is left is people perceiving (and sometimes misunderstanding the implications) of Jesus's activities. There are historical material out side of the cannon of scripture that support Jesus's activities. There are documents that record events with great embellishment and there are documents that are inconsistent with the majority of observations.

4.) If our existence is then perceived as eternal, temporal in this world by use of our bodies, or temporal at the will of God, then the only way to "know God" is through the hope and belief of his character, something intangible but consistent with and contradictory to science. We would need something metaphysical like our soul. On a personal note, I believe science compliments the existence of God.

5.) Christianity is not about being good (it is not works based - you can not earn salvation contrary to some Christian Dogmas argued from the Bible), it is about believing in God, it is the hope of Jesus and what he has done for us that guarantees the continued existence (being with God.) It is an understanding that, like children, God allows free will. You decide. You can live eternally apart from God or with God.

6.) Evil is the absence of God, people or the metaphysical (not just people) influencing for their own gain contradictory to God's character, will or even (and this is odd to say) His plan. That is not to say that as part of God's plan he does not allow leniency for us to do as we like and potentially evil (again like a parent child relationship). But, if you believe in and 'love/respect' God then you will also be compassionate, caring, stern, firm and consistent. Yes, you can believe yet disobey. Yes, Christians can be mean. Additionally, A Christian understands that God works in the lives of Christians and non Christians alike, for "His" will.

7.) The studies of "Christianity" declining can be inaccurate. Maybe what is happening in the surveys of Christianity is that they are becoming more accurate to truly reflect the population of Christians which excludes the 'Holiday' Christians or even the 'Sunday' Christians.

btw - the idea that one path leads to one planet, the other to another planet, that my friends is akin Mormonism.

 

Re: Revealing study about scientific research not getting its required double-checkin

Geez, I'm still convinced that this earth and everything is part of some alien's failed science experiment. "Oh well, we tried to make them smart and self-serving, all they want to do is argue and kill each other off".

Every scripture has something to the effect that "man was created in His image". That kind of proves it doesn't it? We're all flawed, so therefore if we're created in His image, the implication is that He must have been flawed too. But God isn't supposed to make mistakes, he's perfect. Really? He sure screwed up when he made us; mankind always seems to destroy one another because of their belief systems, "I'm right and everyone else is a misguided idiot who's on the way to hell"... Using that, how can anyone claim to omnipotent and perfect when clearly that is not the case? We are then looking at a flawed doctrine, one with very human characteristics and failings; - in other words, crap. Islam claims that "man is perfection in the eyes of Allah", yet they kill everyone who they deem Allah has a problem with; - clearly the logic is flawed there too.

Oh yeah; Humanity isn't logical...that's correct. Humanity is a virus, it is a disease on this planet and like most diseases, it will either destroy itself of kill the host.

You all can believe what you want, whatever makes you happy and whatever gives you the warm and fuzzy feelings you need or want. You can justify and argue any viewpoint to the point of conviction and then beat the interloper with a rock or a shovel if the logic fails, - which invariably it will because it always does and always has.

The only thing I believe is that I'm out.

 

Re: Revealing study about scientific research not getting its required double-checkin

Yes we can argue continually and you do bring up good points like the statement above. How deluded our derivative understanding is and mainly caused by context, word definition, and other factors.

Genesis 1:27. So God created man in his own image In his natural, but especially in his moral image, with an habitual conformity of all his powers to the will of God, his understanding clearly discerning, his judgment entirely approving, his will readily choosing, and his affections cordially embracing his chief good; without error in his knowledge, disorder in his passions, or irregularity or inordinancy in his appetites; his senses also being all inlets to wisdom and enjoyment, and all his faculties of body and mind subservient to the glory of God and his own felicity! But man being in honour did not abide, but became like the beasts that perish! What cause we have for thankfulness that this image of God may be restored to our souls, and how earnestly ought we to pray for, and how diligently to seek this most important of all attainments!

 

Re: Can everybody win? (Re: Research not getting its required double-checking)

Edouard-

I respect you HUGELY but this is like saying "I can't think for myself". I don't know who he is, and frankly I'm not interested. What you are saying is like the car-buying experience "Let me go check with my manager (the man behind the curtain) and get back to you".

Like I said, faith is believing without knowing all (but it seems blatantly obvious to me that there is a preponderance of evidence). And this Professor you mention seems to be someone with a closed mind, I wouldn't bother wasting my time with someone who is so self-righteous. And more and more, unfortunately it seems like you are also saying that your mind is closed. I would have higher hopes of someone whom I respect so much.

Let me know if you're ever in the Boston area, and I'll do the same if I am in your neck of the woods. If you have an open mind, we could have an interesting discussion. If your mind is made up, however, don't bother.

-BC

 

Re: Does God want this ? (Re: Research not getting its required double-checking)

We are on two different pages and not talking about the same thing at all.

God does not "punish" you but leaves you to wallow in the consequences of your mistakes. Judgement day hasn't happened yet. He did not punish Adam and Eve, He simply removed them from His perfect creation because they polluted it. Humanity suffers from disease and all the evil man perpetrates on his fellow man because that is the way we want it not God. The devil had no power on earth when God gave it to Adam and made him master of it. Adam simply handed the keys to the kingdom to the devil who instituted all the evil you see in diseases, war, murder etc...

Angels and man have the power to choose evil. God did not make it. Evil is merely the absence of God.

I explained twice why all those religions are here but you keep wanting a third option that does not exist; so I'll try once more.
Man does not want a relationship (revelational religion) with God his creator because then he can't do what is right in his own eyes.
Man creates a god to suite himself (rational religion) so he can make up the rules as he goes along. Sorta like where the world is today?

What God wants is for mankind to stop creating their religions and find Him but that would mean you don't get to do things your way. Humans would rather have all the turmoil what has existed since Adam and Eve rather than acknowledge God. Jesus came and took the keys to this world back from the devil but we would rather hang with the devil.

The God of creation is not the same God of all the religions. That is where you make your mistake. He does not want it this way, that's why He sent Jesus to take it back for us but we refuse His gracious act of forgiveness.

It really is that simple. I'm not sure why people want to blame God for what we do. It is easier to blame God than accept responsibility for the mess we made.

Mikey

 

Why judge so many badly. (Re: Research not getting its required double-checking)

Dear Chad, Marc, Bob, Mikey, and V-8 Buick armchair philosophers,

Indeed this does seem like beating a dead horse, but I have to ask you if you truly believe your minds are more "open" given what you have written. Hans Sluga and other philosophers aren't stupid fools who "just don't get Christianity." These are learned people who have thought hard about the problems you present and have objections that you have yet to take seriously. Philosophers took the same path as scientists. Philosophers like Descartes felt very strongly that they were serving faith. Over time, philosophy struggled to solve the problems that philosophers were asked to solve within the religious framework that you all are proposing. Like science, philosophy simply gave up trying to be consistent with the theological framework you propose because of the logical inconsistencies. Those works of logic are every bit as real as any religious text. If you insist on ignoring them, exactly who's mind is open?

There are around 1 billion Buddlists who radically disagree with the theology you are advancing. There is a very large number of Hindus in with the exact same position. Even within monotheism there is stark dispute on key points and people are killing each other over these sorts of disputes. If your view of the situation is correct, how many people are left without hope? Every last one of these hopeless people created by the same God that you insist will care for you in a way that God wont offer these others. How can you be absolutely certain that a poor child in a Hindu dominated region of India has been given the same exposure to the reality of God as all of you?

Christianity is only 2000 years old. What is the fate of those human who made our civilization possible but didnt know about God? Is their salvation impossible because they had the misfortune of being born too early?

In order to preserve your dogma you are insisting that intelligent human beings just like yourself don't get what spirituality is and it is ultimately their fault and their fault alone. Such people built the pyramids and the Parthenon, but all their works were utterly in vane and that futility was completely their fault. Still feeling like you are "open?"

I know each of you finds comfort in your faith and you are reluctant to question any part of it. Your reluctance oddly enough is precisely something that Jesus did not possess 2000 years ago. Are you absolutely certain that this religious dogma is precisely what Jesus wants considering that during the last time he was incarnate upon the earth - he made quite a few changes?

Edouard

 

Re: Why judge so many badly. (Re: Research not getting its required double-checking)

Well said Eduard. You've demonstrated you were not tracking with my statements because they echo with your statements here. There was no assertion that the works of others were in vain, only within the dogmas (pural) of so called Christianity would they be qualified as vain. Also, You placed a timeline of 2000 years regarding the span of Christianity. Really, I never bounded my statements with time or in particular with Christianity. Why did you bound it. Is it properly and accurately bounded? I don't think so. Furthermore, your dogma of Jesus as well as the interfered lack of people knowing what spirituality is supports where you and I had talked past each other. The beginning of logic in your assertions is a step toward clarifying existence and then perception of God which was started in my first statement in post 171. So to you touche' "-Still feeling like you are "open?"" in your response to me (as named above). People know what spirituality is, it is inherent in all of us. However, people's talents like writing vary vastly, some can very effectively communicate with the written word. Some can vary clearly discern religion and if constrained to personal beliefs - religions (as a personal matter). I honestly don't think you demonstrated any logical depth or understanding of religions, but only came to the topical conclusion of religion. However you intermingle religion(s) and the associated faiths that apply. To ensure fairness in clarity here is the definition of religion I am using: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power"

You have only taken the logical topical observations to come to your conclusions - religion exists.

Now I do need to apologize for contributing to the off topic posts from the original that you started. It appears many responses are indicating that like science a discussion of religion, religions, faiths and dogmas for discovery is very methodical, logical and illogical. Folks sometime want and/or need to communicate in prose where critical items for conclusions are lost.

 

Re: Why judge so many badly. (Re: Research not getting its required double-checking)

You're right we are flogging a dead horse here. You've put forth your belief and I've put forth mine and we are a universe apart.
Let me leave you with one thought if I may; please let me be clear I am in no way saying we don't do scientific research and look for answers but our beliefs cannot come from us that has been our single most destructive trait.

World intellectuals have agreed we the human race have discovered about 2-3% of all the knowledge that is available but for the sake of argument I will give you 5%. We want to understand the being that has 100% knowledge. Does it seem reasonably certain humans will never get close to the other 95% without revelational knowledge from that being? We can fumble along creating and following our own ideologies as you suggest or we can ask Him. So far following our ideologies has done nothing but be destructive to far more people than we helped. For every five steps forward we take four steps backwards.

Take care.

Mikey

 

Re: Is Paris what you want? (Re: Reesearch not getting its required double-checking)

Edouard,

Are you asking me or are you asking yourself and everyone else you addressed? You are addressing many, and as I suggested in my previous post you want to hold a deep conversation in prose yet you're writing leading statements that would require a focused response in detail not in prose. So, with that I say no I will not respond because this has turned into a conversation where we have several people responding differently instead of a well guide and rational discussion between two individuals. We may as well have a conversation during a riot.

You have not done enough homework. In fact what are your sources of information, I know this forum is not a source. Since I do believe you've finally established a base regarding religion. It is time you begin to dig deeper instead of settling where you are. Read, as if you were writing your dissertation. If you truly want to understand you should begin to understand the divergence of religion between Judaism and the Arab world to the formation of Islam and Christianity.

Have you actually engage intellectuals (theologians) on these matters?

Here's my attempt at an analogous to your writings but in the context of scientific.

Edouard: I find photons fascinating.
Scientist: There is evidence to suggest light behaves like a wave and a particle. (NOTE: That the scientist does not respond later to explain why or how light behaves like both - you'll see this reoccurring theme and notice how I interchange light and photon)
Edouard: I believe the sun produces light.
Scientist: Yes, the Sun, a star produces light. There are other things that produce light.
Edouard: I've read the stars produce light.
Scientist: Yes the stars produce light. We agree on this. You know what is interesting is that black holes are so powerful light can not pass through them.
Edouard: I've read and understand that too.
Scientist: Whats more, the brightest objects in the sky are the result of light produced by the effect of a black hole.
Edouard: I understand that black holes are so powerful that light can not pass through them. (notice no question mark)
Scientist: Yes, but there are systems of particles which at the heart is a black hole and the result is something brighter than every other object in the observable universe.
Edouard: How can you say that? That isn't good enough for me. Black holes exist, light can not pass through and stars produce light.
Scientist: Yes what you said is true, but here is something as interesting beyond stars and black holes. Quasars, the brightest object in the sky consist of a collapsed star to create a black hole, which may or may not have consumed more stars, yet does not emit light itself however it is the cause of the greatest light sources in the observable universe.

Now to confuse this matter: Lets say a solar flare occurs and takes out the power grid (as has occurred before) I would write your response to that of the Paris incident.

Edouard: How does the Sun (a star) have any bearing for the cause of a power outage. Explain.
Chad: No.

Notice the analogous conversation does not contain several deep explanations like that of a photon - and its behaviors of both particles and waves. Notice the mention of a star yet not an explanation of how light is produced from stars. Notice in conversation there is no discussion of how there are various masses of stars, the results of a collapsing stars are several objects including the rarest - magnitars. Notice that the explanation of how or why quasars produce so much light isn't made.

This is why I say to you, your writings suggest you want answers, but simplified (prose). Yet when a statement to lead to a path of answers is made instead of inquiring further you make a restatement of what you had said. This is done to some extent to reject what an expert like a scientist may be able to explain.

Now to further my point, if I told you particles are passing through your body right now would you believe me? Would you believe the astrophysicist?

I don't think you should belabor this thread anymore. If you want to have a more focused conversation it requires a different thread, a different medium, or any other combination.