jerome1232 Posted November 7, 2014 Report Share Posted November 7, 2014 Another, more likely common reason is depravtation of the spirit. If I am reading something and it is causing me to no longer feel the spirit of God I will discontinue to read or view it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackmarch Posted November 7, 2014 Report Share Posted November 7, 2014 In the scientific community, the burden of proof lies on the individual making a claim. If you were to look at god from a purely scientific standpoint, it/he would be a failed hypothesis in the eyes of most scientists.You also have to consider the problem of definition that I stated above. What if god is real, but his nature is very far from the LDS definition? What if Islam got it right? Or what if Judeo-Christian dogma is wrong altogether and we should have been worshipping Thor all along? You have to sell us on god before you sell us on Christianity.the burden of proof is on god's hands actually- which he came through for me for whatever reason. which is one reason i'm not agnostic.wouldn't bother me if he turned out more cthulu-like than not. if you study around all the religions that are touched by abrahamic influence, you'll find that his character does not vary by much between islam, judaism, christianity, and LDS.... and some other cultures.but by the same token at the strong end of athiesm (opposite end of agnostic) athiests have a burden as well- they have to disprove God, or at least disprove every concept of God. something which can't be done with many of them until humanity gains the knowledge of all things in the universe. (which is why agnosticism seems to me a smarter move than hard athiesm).but then for me, what a god is, is quite a bit different from popular concept of what a god is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmiGerman Posted November 8, 2014 Report Share Posted November 8, 2014 In the scientific community, the burden of proof lies on the individual making a claim. If you were to look at god from a purely scientific standpoint, it/he would be a failed hypothesis in the eyes of most scientists.You also have to consider the problem of definition that I stated above. What if god is real, but his nature is very far from the LDS definition? What if Islam got it right? Or what if Judeo-Christian dogma is wrong altogether and we should have been worshipping Thor all along? You have to sell us on god before you sell us on Christianity.If we were to look at God from a pure scientific standpoint, where would you start? First we'd need a clear religious concept. But it would only be a concept. And all concepts can be denied or rejected. See all the theories about the universe: each theory is based on a concept, and I can't see there exists a pure scientific concept about the universe that can give us absolute certainty about the nature of the universe. What about the unification of the Quantum Field Theory with the Theory of Relativity? (In German it's called the "AUT" - die allumfassende Theorie der Natur) Scientists are miles away from that and the Superstring Theory, for example, is one of the latest concepts - with an infinite number of universes. I'm not sure that pure scientific concepts will give us all the answers we are searching for - those concepts can only describe the status quo but they can't give us an answer on the question "why". You also have to consider the problem of definition that I stated above. What if god is real, but his nature is very far from the LDS definition? What if Islam got it right? Or what if Judeo-Christian dogma is wrong altogether and we should have been worshipping Thor all along? You have to sell us on god before you sell us on Christianity. I think, simply to believe in God causes less problems or contradictions than a whole religious concept. God is supernatural and beyond all scientific singularities and phenomenons. What makes it really complicated, is the Christian belief. Is it this what you mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2ndRateMind Posted November 8, 2014 Report Share Posted November 8, 2014 (edited) In the scientific community, the burden of proof lies on the individual making a claim. If you were to look at god from a purely scientific standpoint, it/he would be a failed hypothesis in the eyes of most scientists... Following Karl Popper* (original publication in German, 1934) - and I know he is controversial - the notion has been current that science proceeds, not by proving hypotheses, but by disproving them. Thus, the Copernican idea that the earth is the centre of the universe was discredited by Galileo, Democritus' idea that atoms are indivisible was discredited by Rutherford, the Michelson-Morley experiment discredited Newtonian physics, and so on. Each experimentally disproven hypothesis constitutes a real advance; we now know something to be false we did not know to be false before, even if we do not know with certain accuracy exactly what is true. As Einstein put it: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Science, Popper thinks, advances by discarding the false, and, by doing so, closes in on the truth, in the manner of a curve approaching it's asymptote. I'm interested by how you think this perspective might inform your conception of God as a 'failed hypothesis'. To the best of my knowledge, the idea that God exists has yet to be disproven, and indeed, some experiment that might accomplish this has yet to be proposed. Best wishes, 2RM. * Popper, Karl, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 2002, Routledge, London. Popper, Karl, Conjectures and Refutations, 2005, Routledge, London Edited November 9, 2014 by 2ndRateMind Blackmarch 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmiGerman Posted November 8, 2014 Report Share Posted November 8, 2014 (...) Interested by how you think this perspective might inform your idea of God as a 'failed hypothesis'. To the best of my knowledge, the idea that God exists has yet to be disproven, and what sort of experiment might accomplish this has yet to be proposed. An unanswered prayer...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerome1232 Posted November 8, 2014 Report Share Posted November 8, 2014 (edited) An unanswered prayer...? I just called my Dad's phone, he didn't answer. I left a voice mail asking him to send me a letter, no letter came. He must not exist either. My brother says he got hold of him, but let's ignore that. Edited November 8, 2014 by jerome1232 Vort and askandanswer 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
askandanswer Posted November 8, 2014 Report Share Posted November 8, 2014 (edited) From a religious perspective, it seems to me that the scriptures contain numerous tests and experiments that we are invited and even urged to follow to prove the existence of God - James 1:5, Alma 32, Moroni 10:3-5 etc. If a person fails to gain satisfactory responses from these experiments, it may be that the fault is not with the experiment, but with the experimenter, perhaps either by failing to carry out the experiment with the right frame of mind, or by not understanding/recognising/accepting the results of the experiment. An important part of any experiment is make sure that the instruments used to capture data are able to perform the required functions, and are properly calibrated, suitable for the the experiment and fully functional. For experiments involving proving the existence of God, the required instruments are an informed faith, humility, a heart and mind that are open to receiving divine data, and a degree of repentance. When these instruments are in place and properly calibrated, many people should, and indeed do, come to know for themselves the divine reality of God's existence. The experiments having been successfully tried and replicated by millions of people in all countries and continents, over a period of centuries, I think the onus lies on agnostics and atheists to explain why this is insufficient reason to believe in the existence of God. Edited November 9, 2014 by askandanswer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmiGerman Posted November 9, 2014 Report Share Posted November 9, 2014 I just called my Dad's phone, he didn't answer. I left a voice mail asking him to send me a letter, no letter came. He must not exist either. My brother says he got hold of him, but let's ignore that. "My brother says he got hold of him, ..." You even let the back door open so that my suggested experiment wouldn't have any chance to convince. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2ndRateMind Posted November 9, 2014 Report Share Posted November 9, 2014 (edited) ...When these instruments are in place and properly calibrated, many people should, and indeed do, come to know for themselves the divine reality of God's existence. The experiments having been successfully tried and replicated by millions of people in all countries and continents, over a period of centuries, I think the onus lies on agnostics and atheists to explain why this is insufficient reason to believe in the existence of God. To be fair, I think the problem lies in the prerequisite of faith to replicate the experience of God. Those who have it, may experience God; those who don't, can't. But, those who don't, and can't get this experience, can quite reasonably object that the faithful are presupposing an interpretation of their subjective experiences which may in fact be solely due to psychological or biological quirks in the way the brain operates. For me, the argument to God from individual experiences fails as a proof, even though it does supply considerable supporting evidence. Best wishes, 2RM. Edited November 9, 2014 by 2ndRateMind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Godless Posted November 9, 2014 Report Share Posted November 9, 2014 (edited) To be fair, I think the problem lies in the prerequisite of faith to replicate the experience of God. Those who have it, may experience God; those who don't, can't. But, those who don't, and can't get this experience, can quite reasonably object that the faithful are presupposing an interpretation of their subjective experiences which may in fact be solely due to psychological or biological quirks in the way the brain operates. For me, the argument to God from individual experiences fails as a proof, even though it does supply considerable supporting evidence.Best wishes, 2RM.Exactly right. This is I called god a failed hypothesis. All of your evidence is purely subjective, anecdotal, and rooted in emotion rather than scientific observation. From a religious perspective, it seems to me that the scriptures contain numerous tests and experiments that we are invited and even urged to follow to prove the existence of God - James 1:5, Alma 32, Moroni 10:3-5 etc. If a person fails to gain satisfactory responses from these experiments, it may be that the fault is not with the experiment, but with the experimenter, perhaps either by failing to carry out the experiment with the right frame of mind, or by not understanding/recognising/accepting the results of the experiment.You seem unwilling to accept that some people can and do conduct this "experiment" with the purest of intentions and the right frame of mind and still arrive at different results. There was a time in my life when I desperately wanted to believe that the LDS church was true, that everything I was raised to believe was reality. My worldview was crumbling on top of me and I was terrified by it. My soul-searching led me to the conclusion that god is not real, that he was just another made up entity like Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, and just as plausible. Did I ever truly believe that I felt what you call the Spirit while I was an active member? Sure. Do I believe now that that feeling was caused by something divine or supernatural? No. Edited November 9, 2014 by Godless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2ndRateMind Posted November 9, 2014 Report Share Posted November 9, 2014 (edited) Exactly right. This is I called god a failed hypothesis. All of your evidence is purely subjective, anecdotal, and rooted in emotion rather than scientific observation. Indeed. But this subjective, anecdotal, emotional, qualitative realm is precisely the region God currently operates in, and for reasons that seem good to Him, and good to me. Do not be so ready to discount the subjective and emotional and qualitative, just because science has yet to develop the tools it needs to operate successfully, there. They are a vital dimension of human existence, even if we cannot yet quantify them such that science can measure them, theorise about them with mathematical precision, and devise experiments to test those precise theories. I might add, at this point, that it is my settled opinion that there will never be a completely convincing proof of God, and that those who want that would be well advised not to hold their breath waiting for one. The idea of a proven, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God does not seem compatible to me with human freedom, and, therefore, God's goodness, and desire for our best interests to be manifested by our own, voluntary, efforts. We have quite enough religious fanatics in the world already, with no good reason to inflict their world-views on the rest of us, though, despite that, they do, and often violently. If God were proven, far from being a benign development, I believe it would be disastrous to the project of human progress. So, He hides, except from those who love Him, in a place where objective science cannot yet reach. Best wishes, 2RM Edited November 10, 2014 by 2ndRateMind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackmarch Posted November 10, 2014 Report Share Posted November 10, 2014 I haven't read Cosmos, but have read the Demon Haunted World. I loved that book! It surely isn't LDS, or indeed, Christian, friendly, but that, in my opinion, is why every Christian should read it. We cannot, and should not, claim that we have a monopoly on truth and goodness, and a dose of rational criticism, well argued and carefully assembled, should not be ignored by us as if we are immune from any possibility of improvement. I suspect that some people avoid such works out of fear their faith might be shaken, and recommend that others avoid them out of fear that other people's faith might be shaken. Well, if it is, it was never much of a faith in the first place; the kind of faith, perhaps, that will brook no argument. I suspect that this kind of faith is a kind of faith the world can do without, and not miss. Best wishes, 2RM.While i have no clue about the demon haunted world, but i think any person that has their eyes open and does any in depth studying of various cultures would realise that there is no one group that God limits revelation and inspiration, or goodness to (i've been finding a lot within native american circles over the last while, i'm also interested in looking into muslim history as well i've heard some very interesting things from a few professors).However there are books that are plain out bad in a very subtle way, one which i won't mention the title of here.. but which ended up being a big influence to one of my friends in getting sent to jail (physical violence). He thought the book was interesting as well enlightneing about religion especially the christian/judeo varieties... So be careful, seek the spirit of God, if the book does not invite it, i'd say leave the book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
askandanswer Posted November 10, 2014 Report Share Posted November 10, 2014 But, those who don't, and can't get this experience, can quite reasonably object that the faithful are presupposing an interpretation of their subjective experiences which may in fact be solely due to psychological or biological quirks in the way the brain operates. Best wishes, 2RM. And of course, these psychological or biological quirks in the way the brain operates may well be design features that God has built into the brain to enable us to gain a spiritual confirmation of His existence. Perhaps these "quirks" are the means, or the channel through which we obtain and grow our faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmiGerman Posted November 10, 2014 Report Share Posted November 10, 2014 And of course, these psychological or biological quirks in the way the brain operates may well be design features that God has built into the brain to enable us to gain a spiritual confirmation of His existence. Perhaps these "quirks" are the means, or the channel through which we obtain and grow our faith. Wow. There is nothing in these two sentences I would contradict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2ndRateMind Posted November 10, 2014 Report Share Posted November 10, 2014 (edited) And of course, these psychological or biological quirks in the way the brain operates may well be design features that God has built into the brain to enable us to gain a spiritual confirmation of His existence. Perhaps these "quirks" are the means, or the channel through which we obtain and grow our faith. Just so. If God chose evolution as his method of manifesting intelligent life, there is nothing surprising in the idea that that process might eventually produce some being capable of communion with Him. The bone of contention is this idea of 'nothing butness'. Are these (alleged) quirks nothing but quirks, or do they have deeper significance? Best wishes, 2RM. Edited November 10, 2014 by 2ndRateMind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2ndRateMind Posted November 10, 2014 Report Share Posted November 10, 2014 While i have no clue about the demon haunted world, but i think any person that has their eyes open and does any in depth studying of various cultures would realise that there is no one group that God limits revelation and inspiration, or goodness to ...However there are books that are plain out bad in a very subtle way ... I shouldn't worry about Demon Haunted World. The author's allegiance to truth shines through on every page, and, so far as I can make out, every truth is God's Truth. Best wishes, 2RM. Blackmarch 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.