[tony6789 (OP)]

Could God actually be real i mean i am a Christian but every piece of science we have today say he is not real. That raises the big quustion is He REAL?

- Big T

[rosy]

Nah, there's no real science to say that god isn't real, I don't think (and I'm quite emphatically *not* a christian, or jew, or hindu, or whatever), just none I believe in that says he, she, it or they is or are real.
Of course, there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the biblical creation story is at best an allegory for I-don't-know-what, and it all depends on what you mean by god...

[tony6789 (OP)]

Exactly what do i mean? Who reallt knows? What is god is he man girl blakc white or evan mexican!

- Big T

[rosy]

Quite.
I just thought tjat if you're a christian you might know what sort of god you believe in.
If you're interested in whether science has disproved (your) god, you're going to need a hypothesis about what (your) god is...

[another_someone]

What do you mean by real (let alone, what do you mean by God)?

Gad has no role to play in a scientific model of the universe.  The rules of science require determinism and repeatability, something that is inherently at odds with the notion of a sentient being.  Science even has problems dealing with human free will, so how is it going to deal with the notion of the free will of a supernatural being.

This does not mean God exists, or that he does not exist, only that he cannot exist within a scientific model of the universe.

The question then is whether the definition of real existence is constrained to that which is within the scientific model or not.  Can one have multiple co-existing models where something can exist in one model, but not in another model; and can such an existence be regarded as a real existence.

That something can exist in one model but not in another is self evident, so the remaining question is whether such an existence is a real existence.

If one were to assume a religious model that included a God, is there any limit to the number of permutations of such models that one can create, and how does one judge one model as functionally superior to another?

I suppose the first question one must ask is that if you wish to imagine a model of the universe that includes a God, what problem is that model supposed to solve, and how do you demonstrate that your model is the simplest way of solving that problem.

One of the problems with most real religions is that they actually create extremely complicated models of the universe, and models that contain very many arbitrary assumptions, and create extremely ambiguous answers.  These are attributes that are highly undesirable in any model.

Could you succeed in creating a model of the universe that contained a God, that was simpler, had only a minimum number of assumptions, and gave clear and unambiguous answers to the problems presented to it?

[neilep]

Well I find myself as a staunch non believer in what I think is irational thought of believing in an illogical supernatural being/force/entity/deity....

..however...I remain avaialable to be convinced otherwise....so perhaps I have agnostical leanings.

Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!

[Ottehg Star]

when i see scientific evidence for a god i will believe it but all i see are stories from a book. No one can come up with any evidence to prove there is a god and there is data to disprove some of the bible but not all of it. to me the bible is no more real than any other book for example The lord of the rings. if everyone made statues of frodo and worshipped it they would get locked in an asylum with padded walls. Going by this theory religion is merely an accepted form of Mass Hysteria and with no evidence for it. sorry if i offended anyones beliefs but im really anti religion.

on this subject whos read Angels and deamons by Dan Brown, this forum reminds me of that book, its excellent

[DocN]

Is it possible that someone like Einstein was closer to God because of his theory formation, than say, organized religions?  I did just hear an interesting idea about this from a minister, who felt that the true message of Christian salvation was that God was present in everything and everyone--that one should try to live the moment to the fullest, by finding God in the universe and, perhaps the universe itself, is God.

[tony6789 (OP)]

I don't know what to think rosey

- Big T

[daveshorts]

I would have said that the bible is more real than the lord of the rings - in that there is a load of (almost certainly extreemly biased - most of it was written by people trying to create a national myth) history in there, but I wouldn't want to base my world view exclusively on a book that was written by lots of people with political, and personal axes to grind, with a definite interest in making people think one way about Jesus... If there had been another version of the Bible which was essentially - 'well he is just this great guy with a load of interesting ideas..' I don't think it would have got so many bums on pews...

My attitude is that if there was good scientific evidence for there being a god/gods/flying spagetti monster, I would want to know how he/she/they/it worked and what physics it worked on.

[ukmicky]

The question  was is god real or not, which is an unanswerable question because in the end the only thing that it comes down to is individual beliefs, you either believe or you don't.

Science as yet cant help because it can't prove anything either way in regards to the question, all it can do is refute writings written down in the bible. Which actually prove nothing either way .The only thing that science can prove is that some peoples beliefs are so strong that they felt the need to make up stories as a way to manipulate the minds of the unbelievers. A preacher needs something to preach and it helps if all the preachers of the same faith say the same things.

The way i see it is because nothing can be proved either way then everyone should be allowed to believe whatever they like without argument or prejudice.

Michael

[rosy]

quote:The way i see it is because nothing can be proved either way then everyone should be allowed to believe whatever they like without argument or prejudice.

I'd agree up to a point... where there's no proof one way or the other (such as on the existence of a god)then the only practical response is an open mind... but where people persist in believing that which is demonstrably untrue then I reserve my right to a low opinion of their ability to reason and to regard their other beliefs with an increased degree of scepticism.

[ukmicky]

Hi rosy

Compare your perception of colour compared to a group of people who are colour blind,and without science prove to them they are the ones seeing things incorrectly, Now try to prove to somebody who's whole life has been dedicated to god that god doesnt exist without any proof that what your saying is true. To them your the one that persists in believing in something which is demonstrably untrue.[]

Michael

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by ukmicky

Hi rosy

Compare your perception of colour compared to a group of people who are colour blind,and without science prove to them they are the ones seeing things incorrectly, Now try to prove to somebody who's whole life has been dedicated to god that god doesnt exist without any proof that what your saying is true. To them your the one that persists in believing in something which is demonstrably untrue.[]

Michael

Sorry Michael, but it is quite possible to demonstrate to a colour blind person that “they are the ones seeing things incorrectly “.

Take 10 flat circular counters that the person who is colour blind cannot tell apart, but that you are able to distinguish (supposedly by colour) into three separate groups.  Mark the back of each counter with a number.  Then ask the person who is colour blind, and a person with colour sight, to separate the counters into groups by colour.  Repeat the experiment several times.

The person who can see the colours, should be able to repeat the grouping on each occasion, but the person who is colour blind will create different groups on each occasion.

This does not prove that what is being perceived is actually colour, but it does demonstrate that the people who claim to be able to see colour can see something that the person who is colour blind cannot see.

But, as I say, all it proves is that the colour blind persons view of the universe is incomplete.  Proving that an atheists view of the universe is incomplete would not the same as proving there is a God, only that there is something more than is understood.

George.

[ukmicky]

quote:Sorry Michael, but it is quite possible to demonstrate to a colour blind person that “they are the ones seeing things incorrectly “.

Now go back a few hundred years to before Sir Thomas young and the modern theory of light so your in the same position as we are in now with trying to prove to a someone who passionately believes in god that god is fake with no science to back up our claims. Remember with no science to deal with colour you will have no idea how to create any tests to prove that a colourblind person is seeing things inaccurately, so how can you prove to him and expect him to accept your claims that his colour perception is not normal, as far as he is concerned your the one with screwed up vision and are mad because you you wont accept HIS colour perception as being normal.

its the same situation with god  we cant prove nothing in regards to our claims that there is no god so why  should he a lifelong believer in god  believe what we believe when we are in the same position as him and can't actually prove anything. at least he got faith , what have we got

Michael

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by ukmicky

Now go back a few hundred years to before Sir Thomas young and the modern theory of light so your in the same position as we are in now with trying to prove to a someone who passionately believes in god that god is fake with no science to back up our claims. Remember with no science to deal with colour you will have no idea how to create any tests to prove that a colourblind person is seeing things inaccurately, so how can you prove to him and expect him to accept your claims that his colour perception is not normal, as far as he is concerned your the one with screwed up vision and are mad because you you wont accept HIS colour perception as being normal.

its the same situation with god  we cant prove nothing in regards to our claims that there is no god so why  should he a lifelong believer in god  believe what we believe when we are in the same position as him and can't actually prove anything. at least he got faith , what have we got

Michael

There is nothing that I suggested that would technically be unavailable to the ancient Greeks.  The most that you could argue is that the ancient Greeks did not do statistical analysis.

As I said above, there is nothing in the test that assumes anything about the theory of light, or the physiology of perception; it merely makes the assumption that if someone cannot see a difference between two groups of things, they will not be able to group them consistently into correct groups, while if someone can see a difference, they will be able to group them correctly.

I did make it very clear that the test cannot say anything about the nature of what is seen, only that it proves that one group of people can see something that another group cannot see.  Thus, it proves that the group who claim to see colour differences can demonstrate that the view of the colour blind group is incomplete.

George.

[rosy]

'ere, Michael...
Read what I wrote again please... I said very clearly that where there's no evidence one way or the other (like whether a god or gods exist(s) ) then people should be allowed to get on with believing whatever makes them happy (or in the case of some, their prefered variation on miserable).
However, there are people who believe that the sun goes round the earth (don't get silly with me about reference frames, I know all that and it isn't what they're saying) and I don't hold with people who suggest that I should accept that belief to be as valid as mine that the maths comes out one hell of a lot easier if we put that aside and let ourselves get on with basing our calculations on the idea that to all intents and purposes the earth goes round the sun.

I think that's a nice, uncontroversial example.

To look at yours about colour blindness... I can distinguish between light which has a measurable wavelength of 450 nm and that which is at 600 nm (I picked the numbers out of the air, I don't know what the real ones are for colour blindness). Some people can't. That doesn't mean that the interaction of light with matter happens differently depending on who's looking at it. Equally, in the UV spectrum *everyone* needs a spectrophotometer to see what's being absorbed/emitted.
I was going to say it's a spurious example, but actually I think it makes my point rather well.

Our perceptions of what's true have damn all to do with what *is* true, and common sense doesn't come into it much. Some things are more-or-less measurable by the instruments nature/god has granted us (sights/sounds) some are measurable with the tools we've devised (most of chemistry, the genetic code) and some we can't get at (god/morality/beauty). The relativists should only be allowed to get their grubby paws on group 3.

I don't want to disprove God, I think he's an irrelevance. Either he's there and gave us this world to try to figure out, or he ain't and there's a world to figure out entirely by chance... it makes no difference to my life. I would quite like to discourage people from being unpleasant to each other on the grounds of who they are and who they go to bed with, and am consequently biased against organised religion as a whole, but that has nothing at all to do with the point I was trying to make above.

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by rosy
I don't want to disprove God, I think he's an irrelevance. Either he's there and gave us this world to try to figure out, or he ain't and there's a world to figure out entirely by chance... it makes no difference to my life. I would quite like to discourage people from being unpleasant to each other on the grounds of who they are and who they go to bed with, and am consequently biased against organised religion as a whole, but that has nothing at all to do with the point I was trying to make above.

Firstly, in terms of science, you are totally correct, God is, and must remain, an irrelevance.  Demonstrating that He is an irrelevance is not the same as demonstrating that He does not exist.

In terms of philosophy, anything to do with knowledge, and human perception of knowledge, and matters pertaining to the human psyche, must be relevant.  The concept of God has a pertinence to the human psyche, and for many people, to human perceived knowledge; and thus asking questions about the nature of religion, and thus the nature of the concept of God is relevant.  The bigger problem in terms of the philosophical discussion of God is the lack of adequately agreed frames of reference.

The arguments against organised religion have more to do with organised humanity than with religion.  Nationalism is no less dangerous that organised religion, and the vehement anti-religious perspective of mainstream communism is also no less dangerous.  Religion is merely one of many ways in which you can segregate people into 'us' and 'them', and it is not the religion itself that is dangerous, but the segregation.  Unfortunately, it is an innate part of human nature that we do like to feel we 'belong' to a group, which inherently requires that we distinguish between the group we belong to and those who are outside of that group.

George.

[rosy]

quote:The arguments against organised religion have more to do with organised humanity than with religion. Nationalism is no less dangerous that organised religion, and the vehement anti-religious perspective of mainstream communism is also no less dangerous. Religion is merely one of many ways in which you can segregate people into 'us' and 'them', and it is not the religion itself that is dangerous, but the segregation. Unfortunately, it is an innate part of human nature that we do like to feel we 'belong' to a group, which inherently requires that we distinguish between the group we belong to and those who are outside of that group.

I'd suggest this is only partly true. I'll grant you the human tendancy to xenophobia, but would contend that where specific "outside" groups are designated, or perceived to be so, by a religion that it is more difficult to bring those people into the "inside" group if the communities are living side by side... bigotry is accompanied by a belief that it's righteous, rather than a set of unthinking assumptions which can (I would suggest) more readily be broken down in the face of real people who turn out to be much like the people on the "inside".

quote:The bigger problem in terms of the philosophical discussion of God is the lack of adequately agreed frames of reference.

Quite. See my first post in this thread.

[neilep]

quote:The bigger problem in terms of the philosophical discussion of God is the lack of adequately agreed frames of reference

Roll on utopia.

Unfortunately there will never be an overall agreed format for the definition of ' god '.Such is the realm of human nature to get caught up in endless rows over semantics.

If a principal subject is so complicated, with variations in definition, with so many facets, and differing methods of interpretation, so convoluted in nature , with numerous overlapping opinions and meanings….how on earth can a stable model of such topic be ratified ?


Is it that for some people that ,it is crucial to sway us to their belief ? and for others, it is the actual debate itself, that is the crucial element.....I think it is our very nature to disagree (and agree)...I suppose that's part of sentience eh ?....but I reckon it's that nature of ours that will be responsible for our downfall, ultimately the cockroaches will inherit the Earth.

I know knowledge helps us to understand, and thatt understanding often leads to further questions and though we don’t know the true nature of the Universe and ‘ God’…I suppose the fact that we feel compelled to discuss these topics helps us to understand them , or maybe, to put it another way, it helps us to familiarise ourselves with the topic and so lead to clarity in the ability to discuss and debate.

The God thing I think generates so much debate that sometimes I feel that it’s all pointless, I mean, does anyone actually think that one day there will be a harmonious belief that we’ll all believe the same thing ?..I don’t……what I do hope is that one day there will be a harmonious belief that we’ll all just get along fine despite our differing beliefs, creeds and ethnicity and affiliations etc etc

Anyway...I seem to have digressed....getting back to my original point, how can there ever be an all encompassing agreement on a topic that is so complicated ?




Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!