Faith And Belief Vs. Absolute Non-Absolute.

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 16 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   
As a believer in God, I was thinking about some questions that I would like to propose to you. I know there will be some who come on this thread just to poke those who believe. But we can approach this in a mature manner.

So here are the two questions:

1: Is there no God?

or

2: Is there absolutely no God?

Has science proven there is no God, or has science absolutely proven there is no God? As science cannot rule out non-evidence for something, then science cannot rule out God absolutely, but if it cannot rule out God absolutely, then the first question is no longer viable.

Then I have to ask these questions:

1: Do you believe there is no God?

or

2: Do you absolutely believe there is no God?

For there to be nothing, it must be absolute, but if it is not absolute, then that leaves the possibility that it could, something either is or it isn't, absolutely.




posted on May, 16 2014 @ 10:36 PM
link   
God may exist, God may not exist.

Currently, there is no proof that confirms either theory. All we can do is speculate based on the available evidence or our own personal experiences. There are highly intelligent people who believe, and there are highly intelligent people who do not believe.

Since I have seen no evidence that God does exist, but am open to any evidence that might surface in the future demonstrating that God does exist, at this present moment in time I would state that God probably does not exist.

Either way, my beliefs (or lack of beliefs) do not give me the right to force my views on others or take part in behaviour that negatively affects others in God's name.

Absolute non-belief is, in my opinion, an absurd position.

edit on 16/5/2014 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

Our personal opinions couldn't be more similar if we tried. I tend to take the approach that I cannot say what God is if it does exist, but I cannot prove it doesn't exist. I have no problem with people following a religion or a faith, but if that religion is based on a belief or a faith, and not proof, then those religions shouldn't be allowed to have any political influence at all, or influence on societies morals and ethics considering non-believers also live in that society, but have to live under laws influenced by religion[s] that they don't recognize.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 02:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Has science proven there is no God, or has science absolutely proven there is no God? As science cannot rule out non-evidence for something, then science cannot rule out God absolutely, but if it cannot rule out God absolutely, then the first question is no longer viable.

Depends on the evidence involved. You can quite easily prove something like 'there are no blue people in congress'. (Thank you William Lane Craig)

The 'science can't prove' basically translates into 'your hypothesis cannot be tested'. The test-ability of hypothesis doesn't contribute anything to how likely it is. I'm not an advocate for scientism, but the argument is more along the lines of:

Absence of evidence in creation: Science is yet to find any 'fingerprint' of a creator. All evidence points to humans being developed in a procedural and imperfect way. Furthermore, arguably the logic of creation does not match any known creation story 100%. Stephen Meyer has had a good crack at it, but has a huge amount of trouble getting anyone to agree with him of note.

Absence of evidence in statistics: Statistical analysis of prayer has not given any repeatable results above placebo despite the number of religions endorsing the practice.

The celestial North Korea problem: While this wasn't actually created by Chris Hitchens, he gives one of the best metaphors for the argument. Heaven is like a celestial North Korea that we cannot escape. We are created sick, and then commanded to be well on pain of eternal punishment, and for our troubles we get to live in a celestial dictatorship.

That isn't all the arguments, but basically Scientism / new atheists have mostly championed the argument that God is not real based on an absence of expected evidence within statistics, genetics, and philosophical consistency.

It's just stuff to think about and consider. I really feel the argument has finally stepped beyond the evidence of absence issue. Maybe just a few steps, but they're there.

For myself, if there was such a fingerprint and statistical information my current beliefs would be absolutely shaken. I may still be bound to defy God via the celestial North Korea problem, but I'd actually be worried about it.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 05:51 AM
link   
God exists. He just isn't what most people think He is.
We won't really know Him until we hit the afterlife.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
God may exist, God may not exist.

Currently, there is no proof that confirms either theory. All we can do is speculate based on the available evidence or our own personal experiences. There are highly intelligent people who believe, and there are highly intelligent people who do not believe.

Since I have seen no evidence that God does exist, but am open to any evidence that might surface in the future demonstrating that God does exist, at this present moment in time I would state that God probably does not exist.

Either way, my beliefs (or lack of beliefs) do not give me the right to force my views on others or take part in behaviour that negatively affects others in God's name.

Absolute non-belief is, in my opinion, an absurd position.



Then your last sentence answers the whole problem.

As no one can have absolute non-belief, then no one can demand absolute evidence.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Most people don't demand "absolute evidence", they request observable evidence.

Can you provide observable evidence that God indeed exists?

edit on 17/5/2014 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pinke

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Has science proven there is no God, or has science absolutely proven there is no God? As science cannot rule out non-evidence for something, then science cannot rule out God absolutely, but if it cannot rule out God absolutely, then the first question is no longer viable.

Depends on the evidence involved. You can quite easily prove something like 'there are no blue people in congress'. (Thank you William Lane Craig)

The 'science can't prove' basically translates into 'your hypothesis cannot be tested'. The test-ability of hypothesis doesn't contribute anything to how likely it is. I'm not an advocate for scientism, but the argument is more along the lines of:

Absence of evidence in creation: Science is yet to find any 'fingerprint' of a creator. All evidence points to humans being developed in a procedural and imperfect way. Furthermore, arguably the logic of creation does not match any known creation story 100%. Stephen Meyer has had a good crack at it, but has a huge amount of trouble getting anyone to agree with him of note.

Absence of evidence in statistics: Statistical analysis of prayer has not given any repeatable results above placebo despite the number of religions endorsing the practice.

The celestial North Korea problem: While this wasn't actually created by Chris Hitchens, he gives one of the best metaphors for the argument. Heaven is like a celestial North Korea that we cannot escape. We are created sick, and then commanded to be well on pain of eternal punishment, and for our troubles we get to live in a celestial dictatorship.

That isn't all the arguments, but basically Scientism / new atheists have mostly championed the argument that God is not real based on an absence of expected evidence within statistics, genetics, and philosophical consistency.

It's just stuff to think about and consider. I really feel the argument has finally stepped beyond the evidence of absence issue. Maybe just a few steps, but they're there.

For myself, if there was such a fingerprint and statistical information my current beliefs would be absolutely shaken. I may still be bound to defy God via the celestial North Korea problem, but I'd actually be worried about it.


I descend from the "Blue Fugates" of Troublesome Creek, Kentucky, people that were actually blue from a medical condition, but blue nonetheless.

As no one has ever described God in tangible terms throughout history, then why are people looking for tangible evidence?

The North Korea problem has already been addressed in the Bible.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: WarminIndy

Most people don't demand "absolute evidence", they demand substantial evidence.

Can you provide substantial evidence that God indeed exists?


Either something IS or something ISN'T. Therefore even substantial means that there must be absolute, because evidence is or evidence isn't.

Nothing can't be something at the same time. But my evidence, I have seen God at work in my life. I have seen God at work in other people's lives.

I have seen it, I have heard it, I have felt it, but perhaps because I say this, then it must mean I have a mental condition, because it must be crazy to believe that what you can't see tangibly must be real, even though you do see the tangible effects of non-tangibility.

Observable evidence? I have seen too much in my life, God passes that test for me. Yes, throughout history the observable evidence has been given.

ETA: OK, you edited, let me catch up.

edit on 5/17/2014 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy


As no one can have absolute non-belief, then no one can demand absolute evidence.


Looks like you're trying to take the easy way out again. It never changes. Science relies on evidence. Guess who can't provide evidence? And now you're excusing the need for evidence. Well, then it can't be science, can it?

So it really doesn't matter what you believe. And that's one of the really awesome parts about science.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: WarminIndy


As no one can have absolute non-belief, then no one can demand absolute evidence.


Looks like you're trying to take the easy way out again. It never changes. Science relies on evidence. Guess who can't provide evidence? And now you're excusing the need for evidence. Well, then it can't be science, can it?

So it really doesn't matter what you believe. And that's one of the really awesome parts about science.


No, it really doesn't matter what YOU believe, now does it? And that is a really awesome part about science. Funny thing, you don't even have to believe in the science itself.

Do you ABSOLUTELY believe or not in science as ABSOLUTE?

Does it matter or not what one believes, if even in belief there is no absolute?



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Science hasn't proven there's no god or that we weren't engineered by some advanced race of mortals. However the biblical tails have been disproven.... At least in the historically literal sense.

I've often wondered if science will ever advance enough to disprove the concept of god.

The way I look at it. Most of humanity has been trying to prove their personal god exists for literally all of human history. What do they have to show for it? Nothing. Testimonials about how they got a fuzzy feeling that lead them to make the right choice and a mainly debunked anchient texts.


On the other hand. Science has lead society for the last century or so and look what they have done! EVERYTHING! A list of accomplishments unmatched even if you compare it all the religions over all the thousands of years.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
As no one has ever described God in tangible terms throughout history, then why are people looking for tangible evidence?

In hundreds of cases they did. It's one of the reasons we know various religions are false, because the history they describe didn't happen, and the Gods they describe stopped taking physical form.

Just because God doesn't have a tangible form doesn't mean that God shouldn't have tangible or predictable effects. I read voraciously so you're welcome to suggest sources and I'll go look.


The North Korea problem has already been addressed in the Bible.

For most faiths I don't believe that is true.

With Christianity you would have to elaborate. The North Korea problem doesn't only refer to original sin.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pinke

originally posted by: WarminIndy
As no one has ever described God in tangible terms throughout history, then why are people looking for tangible evidence?

In hundreds of cases they did. It's one of the reasons we know various religions are false, because the history they describe didn't happen, and the Gods they describe stopped taking physical form.

Just because God doesn't have a tangible form doesn't mean that God shouldn't have tangible or predictable effects. I read voraciously so you're welcome to suggest sources and I'll go look.


The North Korea problem has already been addressed in the Bible.

For most faiths I don't believe that is true.

With Christianity you would have to elaborate. The North Korea problem doesn't only refer to original sin.


For so many years I have heard people say things like "God was invented by primitive people to explain natural phenomenon". I really think people underestimate the ancients, as though we are more intelligent somehow. Every bit of our technology isn't something new, it is evolved technology. And it hasn't led to greater compassion or understanding about each other.

Wars and rumors of wars, nation against nation, kingdom against kingdom...still going on today, but what we have different now is the ability to completely destroy each other. And this has been concurrent with the moving away from God. No one can deny that.

The less people feel they need God, the greater their sense of fear of their fellow man. It's predictable and observable. When you see nation after nation turn away, and see the effects of breaking spiritual laws, in order to keep natural laws, then it is also observable as well.

A lion chases a gazelle to eat it, but the gazelle exists solely to be eaten. The laws of nature dictate the gazelle must live in fear, so then one can't have compassion for the gazelle. And if this is a natural law, one designed solely by nature itself, then there is no room in the natural order for people who are gazelles, the weaker who are exploited by the strong, to be eaten by the strong.

But we then say that we must have compassion on the weak, that there is beauty in the gazelle, then it is spiritual and a spiritual law. The lion still has to eat though. The observable is that we can see the natural order of things, that we accept it must be so, but the spiritual is that we observe that people are more than gazelles, that beauty is appreciated and that we then protect the weaker.

Just as natural laws are observed, spiritual ones are as well. If North Korea is like the lion, that by natural law must stalk their prey, then there can be no condemnation on them for fulfilling the natural order. But if we condemn them, then it means they violate a spiritual law.

Have they violated a spiritual law?



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

For so many years I have heard people say things like "God was invented by primitive people to explain natural phenomenon". I really think people underestimate the ancients, as though we are more intelligent somehow.


I think you're really overestimating our primitive relatives, and ignoring the progress we've made over the past few hundred years.

Or are you saying we don't know substantially more now than we did thousands of years ago?


Every bit of our technology isn't something new, it is evolved technology.


So processors, smartphones and large hadron collider(s) have always existed?? do you even think before you post?


And it hasn't led to greater compassion or understanding about each other.


Why on earth would it? it's technology.......


Wars and rumors of wars, nation against nation, kingdom against kingdom...still going on today, but what we have different now is the ability to completely destroy each other. And this has been concurrent with the moving away from God. No one can deny that.


You think that the development of nukes ive the past 60-70 years has had something to do with the rise of secularism and fall of religion (in the west at least)?? Lol yeah I can dismiss that, I guess the rise of social rights over the same period is responsible too? or the fact we landed on the moon? or education? or even the developments in science? or just about anything else that's happened recently?.......


The less people feel they need God, the greater their sense of fear of their fellow man. It's predictable and observable. When you see nation after nation turn away, and see the effects of breaking spiritual laws, in order to keep natural laws, then it is also observable as well.


So by these standards can we see a religious country whose population does not fear their fellow man? can you give examples? or are you making this up too?


A lion chases a gazelle to eat it, but the gazelle exists solely to be eaten. The laws of nature dictate the gazelle must live in fear, so then one can't have compassion for the gazelle. And if this is a natural law, one designed solely by nature itself, then there is no room in the natural order for people who are gazelles, the weaker who are exploited by the strong, to be eaten by the strong.


Yep you're making things up.......what on earth are you talking about......laws of nature that say 'gazelle must live in fear'???

I'm sure it made sense in your head, but it has no basis in reality i'm afraid.


But we then say that we must have compassion on the weak, that there is beauty in the gazelle, then it is spiritual and a spiritual law. The lion still has to eat though.


What about ugly creatures? or creatures that are strong and are also eaten by lions? (elephants, water buffalo etc etc).


The observable is that we can see the natural order of things, that we accept it must be so, but the spiritual is that we observe that people are more than gazelles, that beauty is appreciated and that we then protect the weaker.


Nothing 'spiritual' (whatever that means) is required in order to have Empathy.


Just as natural laws are observed, spiritual ones are as well. If North Korea is like the lion, that by natural law must stalk their prey, then there can be no condemnation on them for fulfilling the natural order. But if we condemn them, then it means they violate a spiritual law.


What if NK is more like a rat? or a bacteria that breaks down fecal matter? What would make NK a lion over those other creatures?



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

I see this thread as trying to convince everyone in earshot that they have doubts, and using that as a basis to lever them over to your way of thinking.


As science cannot rule out non-evidence for something, then science cannot rule out God absolutely, but if it cannot rule out God absolutely, then the first question is no longer viable.


You're like a shark, looking for any possible loophole by which to stack the entire game in your favor. This isn't about finding the right answer, but finding a way to make your answer look like the right answer. I'm not interested in that game. Peace.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
For so many years I have heard people say things like "God was invented by primitive people to explain natural phenomenon". I really think people underestimate the ancients, as though we are more intelligent somehow. Every bit of our technology isn't something new, it is evolved technology. And it hasn't led to greater compassion or understanding about each other.

I mostly just agree with this.



but what we have different now is the ability to completely destroy each other. And this has been concurrent with the moving away from God. No one can deny that.

I think this is a modern centric view.

Ancient humans have always struggled with this. Wars could drive agricultural societies to ruin since if people are fighting they're not in fields. Though I too am uncomfortable with weapons of mass destruction, I don't think moving away from God correlates with that. It never stopped.


The less people feel they need God, the greater their sense of fear of their fellow man. It's predictable and observable.

This is where we deviate quite strongly though.

Many of us live in safer societies than we ever have done. Life without absolute religious morals can certain seem imposing, but free speech is one of the things it brings. Elites used to worry the common folk would go crazy without it, yet here we are!

Regarding gazelle and lions ... You're arguing against very deep scientism, which is a position I don't hold. Yes, I'm an Atheist but I feel very deeply about life and observe its beauty every day. Oddly Christianity used to argue from a point of natural order to excuse many things including the inherent servility of women. Now the position is changed, and it is that science is promoting natural order or materialism and religion is about looking deeper.

I don't believe that valuing science immediately leads to being in a moral void or turning to vicious misguided utilitarianism.

I think the real question to ask is ... if you're a Christian, and I'm an Atheist, then why do we both value the weak? Why do we both observe beauty? Why do we both believe in fairness? We disagree on this major issue, but there seems to be a lot of things we do have in common leading me to believe those beautiful things don't come from religious beliefs or the lack of them.

It does make me curious, what do you think it is?



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: WarminIndy

I see this thread as trying to convince everyone in earshot that they have doubts, and using that as a basis to lever them over to your way of thinking.


As science cannot rule out non-evidence for something, then science cannot rule out God absolutely, but if it cannot rule out God absolutely, then the first question is no longer viable.


You're like a shark, looking for any possible loophole by which to stack the entire game in your favor. This isn't about finding the right answer, but finding a way to make your answer look like the right answer. I'm not interested in that game. Peace.


AfterInfinity

If that is the case then why do you jump in the shark tank?

It is no longer viable and that is a point of discussion that you are going to have to willingly discuss. You are not interested in that because it's part of a "game" that you cannot win. That's the matter in this whole problem.

So don't play the "game" but by all means, don't ever remove the questions from the table because the questions don't suit you.

The question was never directed toward you personally to begin with, but why be intellectually dishonest when other people might have the exact same question, are you going to call agnostics sharks when they also propose the same thing?

This isn't about evidence or non-evidence, it is about personal faith and belief. That's why I asked the other two questions, because it is the sum of the entire issue. You can't argue that there is no God when you yourself have said that faith and belief are not required for anything. It must be much better for you to say you have belief in nothing, not that you can even say you have no belief.

That's the rub, because you can't say there is no such thing as no belief whatsoever, because belief itself is contradictory to your own non-evidence. And you can't answer the simplest question, do you absolutely believe there is no God?

Evidence or non-evidence does not matter if you can not say you do not absolutely believe there is no God. That's not my quandry, it's yours. Because now the answer will have to be from you, not the side of science, of why you do not absolutely believe, and now why you can't even prop your discussion by using science to do it.

If that's a "game" then perhaps you need to consider how it became a "game" in the first place. Tiptoe around the bushes by using semantics about "science doesn't require faith or belief" or "science doesn't prove or disprove absolutes". By the very virtue of forcing the idea of "we don't have to believe", is a belief in itself. That's not my quandry, it is yours.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy




The North Korea problem has already been addressed in the Bible. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


What does the Bible have to do with proof of the existence of god? Do you have a specific definition of god for us to prove or disprove?



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pinke

originally posted by: WarminIndy
For so many years I have heard people say things like "God was invented by primitive people to explain natural phenomenon". I really think people underestimate the ancients, as though we are more intelligent somehow. Every bit of our technology isn't something new, it is evolved technology. And it hasn't led to greater compassion or understanding about each other.

I mostly just agree with this.



but what we have different now is the ability to completely destroy each other. And this has been concurrent with the moving away from God. No one can deny that.

I think this is a modern centric view.

Ancient humans have always struggled with this. Wars could drive agricultural societies to ruin since if people are fighting they're not in fields. Though I too am uncomfortable with weapons of mass destruction, I don't think moving away from God correlates with that. It never stopped.


The less people feel they need God, the greater their sense of fear of their fellow man. It's predictable and observable.

This is where we deviate quite strongly though.

Many of us live in safer societies than we ever have done. Life without absolute religious morals can certain seem imposing, but free speech is one of the things it brings. Elites used to worry the common folk would go crazy without it, yet here we are!

Regarding gazelle and lions ... You're arguing against very deep scientism, which is a position I don't hold. Yes, I'm an Atheist but I feel very deeply about life and observe its beauty every day. Oddly Christianity used to argue from a point of natural order to excuse many things including the inherent servility of women. Now the position is changed, and it is that science is promoting natural order or materialism and religion is about looking deeper.

I don't believe that valuing science immediately leads to being in a moral void or turning to vicious misguided utilitarianism.

I think the real question to ask is ... if you're a Christian, and I'm an Atheist, then why do we both value the weak? Why do we both observe beauty? Why do we both believe in fairness? We disagree on this major issue, but there seems to be a lot of things we do have in common leading me to believe those beautiful things don't come from religious beliefs or the lack of them.

It does make me curious, what do you think it is?


I do believe that all people are given some measure of spiritual grace, that is subject to spiritual law. There are spiritual laws that transcend laws of nature.

For instance, the cat that attacked the dog. We think the cat did a wonderful thing, because it saved a little boy, the dog didn't care, he was acting on the natural instinct.

So why did everyone get so happy over the video? If all is just natural, then who cares about the little boy. But we do, why?

It goes against the natural law, it transcends the natural law and that makes it spiritual. Do you think man is mere animal and subject to the animalistic law of nature?

Or is there something more to man than just being an animal? Yes, animals have compassion, feelings, empathy or whatever, but when animals act like animals and man should be an animal, then why is man held to the higher moral standard?

What holds us to a higher moral standard? Other animals? The animals don't even do that to each other.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join