Science Really Does Point To God [Spirituality & Religion]

@Speedyman

[quote] thes ientific method [/quote]

[quote]those itprrationairratiobal peopke who believes[/quote]

You do know the keyboard has a backspace button?

@CookieLuvsBunny Savage.

@Tarxarin
At first I thought he was typing in Welsh

@CookieLuvsBunny It was kinda crazy, but I could tell it was botched English almost immediately. It wasn't werid enough otherwise.

@Tarxarin
I really shouldn't say anything. I constantly have to correct my typing. I use the hunt, peck and cuss typing procedure

@Speedyman The Scientific Method also means that you can not (at anny time) use presuppositions. And it's open for radical criticism.

Even if you conclude that the universe is rational, that is not enough reason to pressupose a "rational creator". That's quite a leap of faith. And even if you would formulate one, it would be a "hypothesis" and then you need to start experimenting, observing, ... etc. Just to see if it's true. Till that day, the idea of a "rational creator" is a hypothesis, and not a certainty. So yeah... How is the scientific method going to back up your claim? It's begging for evidence? Where is yours? 🤷‍♂️

I'm not sure what he is trying to say. I mean no, um..., Malice to anyone. Also I hear you. I'm using this from my smartphone I'll be damned if it did as I told it to.

@Kwek00 your right the scientific method is slow, and can only handle what can be measured.

@Tarxarin
He is saying your wrong if you don't agree with him.

@CookieLuvsBunny I hate when people just take that "I'm right so decency be damned and blah blah here's my argument I didn't think through" stuff. If your learning from the discussion what's the point?

Point taken! 😄@CookieLuvsBunny

Not a leap of faith at all. It was the rational presupposition of all the great scientific pioneers. That is, unless you believe unguided forces create rational beings. The very fact we are rational points to a rational creator. Unless you believe irrationality can produce rationality. And I hope my keyboard got it right this time. @Kwek00

@Speedyman You did great. Nice philosophy. Makes sense to me.

And you're not? 😄😄😄@CookieLuvsBunny

@Speedyman I shouldn't have said anything. I never type a line without having to correct a mistake. I am terrible at spelling

@CookieLuvsBunny You did him a favor by pointing it out to him. His humility is respectable .@Speedyman good in ya man.

@Speedyman
Trust me... before the 18th century, "God" was pretty much a presupposition in the mind of a lot intelligent people. An intelligent person can be religious. Being religious has verry little to do with "rationality" either, neither is non "religion". It really depends on what axiom you start from.

If you pressupose a God, as a dogmatic truth. You can build a perfect rational world with that foundation. We pretty much can observe that all around us. The dogmatic truth always comes with a book of scripture, which embedes the religious factor even deeper in the entire society. If everyone is religious around you, you are pretty much blind to another truth unless something happens. And even if something happens, you might not change your mind. Just look at Albert Einstein, whoes research created an entire new field of science. And because of Albers' faith (believe system) couldn't accept the consequence of his findings. He just couldn't figure it out, because it contradicted his conception of God. That's the limit of religion. At some point you come to a question, which you are not allowed to answer. Because it would contradict the presupposition of the existence of "God". Only at that moment you can see behind the curtain, when crisis strikes and you become aware of something that is irrational. In all other moments the believers are pretty fine.

@Kwek00 I suppose so. And your reasoning is by and far more about culture then religion though. I've found many atheists more dogmatic then Christians.

But Albert camus definitely did not close himself off to possibility. He died an atheist if I remember correctly.

Your speaking to human nature, culture, and conditioning more then anything else.

@Tarxarin Atheists that are dogmatic about?

Most people I know have a more agnostic stance, which means they don't believe in God, but they wouldn't mind if there was a real proof for his excistence either. Most of them probably just go: "okay, now that we know this, we can build further on this information.". Which is the diffrence between: "well, lets just say this is true, and lets build an entire worldvieuw on it.".

@Kwek00 They get pretty anti Christian, and very "philsophical" and my favorite part is, they are everything they claim hate, in all but label.

Many agnostics have strong opinions on things they just won't make any choices on it.

I think any hard core belief system that is not disciplined and held to value and morals is in danger of becoming corrupt.

@Tarxarin Being "anti christian" and "philosophical" has nothing to do with "dogma" tough.

Not believing in God isn't really an opinion. You just start from the position: "what we haven't found to be true in a scientific way, doesn't excist.". The people I'm talking about, don't believe in God. That's is a pretty strong opinion. But they aren't married with it. It's not that if God suddenly appeared to be found "true" that we'll start changing our history and paint little God Figures in our old 19th century painting. (at least that's what I hope..., you never know 😒). There will just be a point in time when God wasn't discovered, and the one after that. No creationism needed there.

Discipline and Corruption ... I think you can link that.
Value and Morals are pretty fuzzy business tough. But almost all society that I know about has "Values and Morals"... they just differ.

@Kwek00 look at Christian's, they have values but historically they haven't kept them. You can't say loving you neighbor like yourself can justify the crusades.

I don't think they're fuzzy I think we ignore them as a species because it's easier.

Yes I agree we are discussing two different kinds of people we have interacted with, with the same denotative label. The connotation is clearly very different for each of us.

I've met some nice satanists, never met a unnice one actually.

Opinions about God aren't correct. We could replace that word with beliefs.

@Speedyman [quote]a rational universe therefore a rational mind behind it.[/quote]
Non sequitur - as you would know if you applied a bit of logic.

@Sharon First of all. I like your style. But how is that no sequitur? I'd like to learn more here.

@Tarxarin I'm sorry... but the book is way longer then just "love your neighbour". Like, it's really not that simple from a theological standpoint. Considering the entire book, God really didn't teach by example. There is even a passage in Exodus where he orders a Genocide [i](Exodus23:20-33)[/i]

Since the rules are so interpretable... I also wouldn't make the claim that "christians" didn't held their values. You can point to examples, but all sects of christianity still promote and incorporate some set of values and morals. Even in religion, there excists pluralism.

So far "opinions about God" is a "believe". It's just something that you accepted without evidence. There are more earthly believes. Like antisemitism is a famous one, that's a "believe". That 9/11 was a hoax, there is another believe. Even the idea that you will explode while drinking Schweppes Tonic and Baileys toghether. For me it falls all in that category.