How much a priority should "proving god" be on the list of scientific research?

[Athanasius90]

Isaiah:29:6

derp.

Yeah, because that's totally saying scientific explanations should be subverted by 'god dun it'. Isaiah was a bronze age scientific text, after all. That was its purpose.


Get a book on exegesis, and maybe hop on a crosstrainer while you're at it.

[Spuddy]

Well human life itself is a leap into the unknown. The reason I said proving "God" is a priority before space travel, was because to me, space travel is just as big as an unknown as the spiritual dimension.

But your point about the God of Fire and God of Thunder is really interesting, because that would imply that we are trying to find out the God of Life, which is really, the ultimate question to humans, besides maybe, if we are alone.

I don't think you could prove God before space travel, because understanding how to travel through space intrinsically means understanding more about God. And it's interesting that you said "God of Life", because I actually hadn't thought of it that way. But I think you're right- What most people think of as the God of Everything could really just be summed-up as the God of Life for the most part.. The god that specializes in us and the nether beyond.

I think we're already starting to understand this particular God- Once quantum science figures out this ethereal, unknown thing that is connecting us all and bringing certain events to the forefront of our consciousness at specific times (and I do believe there is something,) that will represent a huge chunk of God as we currently think of "Him." The question then, is what happens next. Like we did with the volcano god and others, do we project ourselves into the next mental void and call something that we currently wouldn't even comprehend our new version of god? IE: Someone blindly worshipping and sacrificing to a volcano has no time for a loving personal god, because that doesn't make sense conceptually when a volcano is regularly leveling villages. What does our loving personal god become when we understand the why behind it?

[Spuddy]

Yes, but no Christian theist, or any major theologian or religious philosopher of repute has ever said God is making volcanoes explode or thunder. I don't know if Jewish or Muslim theists ever said such a thing, but I doubt they would have been so careless or silly. It may capture the sentiments of pagans, or romans, sumerians, or the ancient greeks though. But not monotheism.

I don't think you were raising that as a criticism of theism though-but its an important point. I made a whole thread on it. What atheists take to be some devastating intellectual take down of theism is actually just them talking to themselves.

Abrahamic religions are far from the first conceptions of god. I would say they're simply the latest concepts in an endless evolution of what god is.

Also, I am no more an atheist than I am a theist.. I tend to see God as consciousness itself, which words and our simple minds could never hope to sum up as answer A or B

[AgentFlu]

I don't think you could prove God before space travel, because understanding how to travel through space intrinsically means understanding more about God. It's interesting that you said "God of Life" because I actually hadn't thought of it that way, but I think you're right- What most people think of as the God of Everything could really just be summed-up as the God of Life for the most part.. The god that specializes in us and the nether beyond.

I think we're already starting to understand this particular God- Once quantum science figures out the ethereal, unknown thing that is connecting us all and bringing certain events to the forefront of our consciousness at specific times (and I believe there is something,) that represent a huge chunk of God as we currently think of "Him." The question then, is what happens next. Like we did with the volcano god and others, do we project ourselves into the next mental void and call something that currently wouldn't even comprehend our new version of god? Someone blindly worshipping a volcano has no time for a loving personal god, because it doesn't make sense. What does our loving personal god become when we understand the why behind it?

Volcanoes are pretty impressive though. They create new land and fertile soil. I think if you really wanted to, you could start a religion based on a volcano. Because all it takes for religion is faith, right?

[Athanasius90]

Abrahamic religions are far from the first conceptions of god. I would say they're simply the latest concepts in an endless evolution of what god is.

Also, I am no more an atheist than I am a theist.. I tend to see God as consciousness itself, which words and our simple minds could never hope to sum up as answer A or B

Yes, but any conception subject to god-of-gaps, or any god which throws lightning or bursts volcanoes is sorely lacking.

[Weightaholic]

Evidence for god is anything which makes gods existence more probable than it would have been without it. Standard scholarly definition.

its actually a really ridiculous claim.

Fixed that for you.

[Weightaholic]

Yeah, because that's totally saying scientific explanations should be subverted by 'god dun it'. Isaiah was a bronze age scientific text, after all. That was its purpose.

BRB, dismissing my own holy texts because they're obviously rubbish. LOL. Myriad, you make me laugh.

Get a book on exegesis, and maybe hop on a crosstrainer while you're at it.

How you going winning those souls? Gonna guess personal insults don't work so well? Such an aggressive little man. Tsk.

[Athanasius90]

Misrepresent what I say. Nice going Fedoraholic.


Age: 42

Has the reasoning ability and intellectual maturity of a small child.

[homicidal_misc]

I think he thought age meant iq when entering his info.

[Spuddy]

Yes, but any conception subject to god-of-gaps, or any god which throws lightning or bursts volcanoes is sorely lacking.

Why is a God of Gaps offensive to religious folk? If God is in everything, then God is in those gaps that many find so unimpressive. I'm not being a smartass, either, really think about it. For something to truly be all-encompassing, it must be both everywhere and nowhere, in both everything and nothing. The God of the Gaps is a real aspect of any singularly-powerful god by default. Hard to wrap your head around, but that's what faith is for


-edit- to put it differently, I see the God of the Gaps as a sort of "God of the future" and scientific understanding as "God of the present/past."

[homicidal_misc]

Why is a God of Gaps offensive to religious folk? If God is in everything, then God is in those gaps that many find so unimpressive. I'm not being a smartass, either, really think about it. To me, God is both everything there is and nothing at all. For something to truly be all-encompassing, there's really no way it could be otherwise, because nothing DOES exist, and God must inherently be in that nothing. Hard to wrap your head around, but that's what faith is for

god of the gaps is occasionalistic, pantheistic, and makes God finite. It is not a coherent/correct view of God. Classical theism involves causality.

[Athanasius90]

I think he thought age meant iq when entering his info.

At times like this, all you can do is post memes.

Why is a God of Gaps offensive to religious folk? If God is in everything, then God is in those gaps that many find so unimpressive. I'm not being a smartass, either, really think about it. To me, God is both everything there is and nothing at all. For something to truly be all-encompassing, there's really no way it could be otherwise, because nothing DOES exist, and God must inherently be in that nothing. Hard to wrap your head around, but that's what faith is for

I Meister Eckhart what you did there.

[AgentFlu]

Why is a God of Gaps offensive to religious folk? If God is in everything, then God is in those gaps that many find so unimpressive. I'm not being a smartass, either, really think about it. To me, God is both everything there is and nothing at all. For something to truly be all-encompassing, there's really no way it could be otherwise, because nothing DOES exist, and God must inherently be in that nothing. Hard to wrap your head around, but that's what faith is for

Actually, the sheer difference between EVERYTHING in space is pretty impressive (electrons and protons, planets and stars, stars and stars, galaxies and galaxies...) That distance is all NOTHING (as far as we know, I'm not even gonna start on that "dark matter" ****.)

[Athanasius90]

god of the gaps is occasionalistic and pantheistic. It is not a coherent/correct view of God. Classical theism involves causality.

I wouldnt even give it the dignity of an occasionalist position. It's a pure strawman, just atheists talking to themselves or providing devastating refutations of age-old giant superhumans that noone has believed in for millenia.

[AgentFlu]

At times like this, all you can do is post memes.






I Meister Eckhart what you did there.

So what's your belief in evolution, anyways? You an intelligent designer, looks like?

[homicidal_misc]

I wouldnt even give it the dignity of an occasionalist position. It's a pure strawman, just atheists talking to themselves or providing devastating refutations of age-old giant superhumans that noone has believed in for millenia.

right I should have said occasionalistic 'at best.'

[Athanasius90]

So what's your belief in evolution, anyways? You an intelligent designer, looks like?

Nope.

[homicidal_misc]

Nope.

lol it's funny how that has become the 'default' theistic position. Thanks a lot Paley.

[AgentFlu]

Nope.

Do you believe in an earth that had life for millions of years?

[Athanasius90]

lol it's funny how that has become the 'default' theistic position. Thanks a lot Paley.

Lol. In the words of Feser (pbuh)-- What would atheists do without Paley? Such an easy target, a pathetic punching bag.

Do you believe in an earth that had life for millions of years?

Yes.

[Neceseco]

darwin already proved false the abrahamic gods

[Athanasius90]

darwin already proved false the abrahamic gods

Lol

[homicidal_misc]

Lol. In the words of Feser (pbuh)-- What would atheists do without Paley? Such an easy target, a pathetic punching bag.

lol speaking of Feser (pbuh) I was listening to the symposium with Feser and Ramelow during my commute to and from work today. Got about halfway through and will probably finish it all tomorrow. Good stuff.

[Spuddy]

god of the gaps is occasionalistic, pantheistic, and makes God finite. It is not a coherent/correct view of God. Classical theism involves causality.

If God does not encompass those traits, then God is not all-encompassing. How you choose to interpret that is up to you, but just some food for thought, I left religion because I see THAT as taking the infinite and make it finite. God as you see it lacks at least three aspects of consciousness (occasionalistic, pantheistic, and finite) that God as I see it wholly fulfills. "God is infinite, but He isn't these things that I disagree with."

[homicidal_misc]

darwin already proved false the abrahamic gods

[Neceseco]

Lol

The tendency in savages to imagine that natural objects and agencies are animated by spiritual or living essences, is perhaps illustrated by a little fact which I once noticed: my dog, a full grown and very sensible animal, was lying on the lawn during a hot and still day; but at a little distance a slight breeze occasionally moved an open parasol, which would have been wholly disregarded by the dog, had any one stood near it. As it was, every time that the parasol slightly moved, the dog growled fiercely and barked. He must, I think, have reasoned to himself in a rapid and unconscious manner, that movement without any apparent cause indicated the presence of some strange living agent, and no stranger had a right to be on his territory.

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, vol. 1, 64-5.

[Athanasius90]

The tendency in savages to imagine that natural objects and agencies are animated by spiritual or living essences, is perhaps illustrated by a little fact which I once noticed: my dog, a full grown and very sensible animal, was lying on the lawn during a hot and still day; but at a little distance a slight breeze occasionally moved an open parasol, which would have been wholly disregarded by the dog, had any one stood near it. As it was, every time that the parasol slightly moved, the dog growled fiercely and barked. He must, I think, have reasoned to himself in a rapid and unconscious manner, that movement without any apparent cause indicated the presence of some strange living agent, and no stranger had a right to be on his territory.

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, vol. 1, 64-5.

Strong disproof.

[Neceseco]

Strong disproof.

the disproof is that we were not created as the abrahamic religions affirm. that extract just shows how your simple minds are driven to believe to imaginary beings

[homicidal_misc]

If God does not encompass those traits, then God is not all-encompassing. How you choose to interpret that is up to you, but just some food for thought, I left religion because I see THAT as taking the infinite and make it finite. God as you see it lacks at least two aspects of consciousness that God as I see it wholly fulfills.

God's "traits" and how they relate to nature do not require a pantheistic view. In fact, pantheism is not logically sound given God's essence, being His existence. He is pure being, pure act, not immutable, subsistent in Himself, etc.

[Athanasius90]

the disproof is that we were not created as the abrahamic religions affirm. that extract just shows how your simple minds are driven to believe to imaginary beings

That extract shows that you enjoyed setting fire to a big pile of straw.