Forget Iceland. FFA, how was the Universe created? (1 Viewer)

[matuski]

Many races believe that the creation of the Universe involved some sort of God, though the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being known as the Great Green Arkleseizure. The Jatravartids live in perpetual fear of the time they call the Coming of the Great White Handkerchief, somewhat similar to the Apocalypse. However, the Great Green Arkleseizure theory is not widely accepted outside Viltvodle VI and so, the Universe being as wide and strange as it is, other explanations are constantly being sought by different races throughout the Galaxy.

Been 20 some odd years since I read these.

 

[Donkey Derp]

Link to where I admitted that you have offended my personal beliefs? I'm not trying to insult you; rather, I am pointing out the obvious reasons why you are the most pathetic poster on this forum.

Considering how blatantly obvious you are in your goal to make this personal, you may want to switch tactics... your efforts thus far are fairly boring.

Get creative, make your punches related to something other than the apparent fact my posts get under your skin. May I suggest posting something related to the thread?

Your posts don't get under my skin. You are a grown man who acts like a childish troll in every thread regarding religion. Acting that is way is pathetic. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Gold Dragon]

The thing is, it doesn't matter what anyone believes. Belief in something does not qualify it as truth. Empirical evidence is the only thing that leads to objective truths. This is not to suggest science has all the answers. In fact, science would not exist if all answers were known. Big Bang Theory is not speculation. It is the best explanation of the empirical evidence that currently exists. This theory, like any other scientific theory, continues to evolve as new information is incorporated into the existing body of evidence. As that process plays out we discover more and more truths about our universe. Although the ultimate answer to the question of how the universe began may never fully be known, it is ONLY the scientific method that can bring us closer to knowing and give us the potential of knowing.

I agree totally with you about the Big Bang. It is not just speculation and there is a significant body of evidence to support it. And with all scientific endevour, it changes as new evidence comes to light.

I also agree with you that belief in something does not make it true. But also, just because something is scientific does not make it true. Scientific evidence is far from the only source of evidence and as you are aware, has error and bias.

As a medical doctor, I am weighing objective and subjective evidence on a daily basis to arrive at the truth of a diagnosis. Many of our diagnoses are based purely on subjective evidence and the absence of objective findings to the contrary. Additionally I am expected to be able to appraise the quality different levels of scientific evidence about diseases, tests and management for all sorts of bias. For instance, drug studies performed by pharmaceutical companies are viewed differently to more independent reviewers. In this Icelandic study, it appears to be funded by an explicitly atheist group which does puts it under the microscope more.

Finally, objective truth is only a small portion of the truth that matters in life. We try to discover truth by gathering as much objective evidence as we can, but ultimately our decisions about truth are stongly based on subjective information and may even be contrary to the objective data that we have.

Does this woman really love me? Should I trust her and commit my life to her? Is this witness's testimony credible? Is this babysitter trustworthy? Will the patriots win the Super Bowl?

For me, the existence of God has a lot of non-emperical evidence that may be non-scientific and difficult to test scientifically, but that is true of a lot of important things in life. And maybe you have seriously considered it and found it wanting. That is your prerogative but I hope you don't short change yourself of an honest exploration into one of the biggest questions in life and human history.

I fully agree with the first part of the bolded statement. It is impossible for us to have first hand experience with many things in life. As such we must put a certain amount of faith into those sources we deem to be credible. Our perception of what is true definitely has a subjective component. However, I think it would be nonsensical to hold on to perceptions of truth in the face of objective data to the contrary.

For me, the existence of a creator god has no empirical evidence, and is impossible to test scientifically. It is difficult to comment on your non-empirical evidence for god. We are all unique, and I obviously do not share your experience in life. If you rolled out your list of non-empirical evidence, I would likely either find most of it lacking substance or see it as evidence for something completely different than a deity. This is not meant to be disrespectful. It is merely an expectation that my interpretation of such "evidence" would be vastly different from your interpretation. I was raised in the Catholic faith and attended Catholic schools. My wife is a devout Catholic. I feel that I understand the Christian perspective pretty well. I have contemplated the question of God's existence for at least 35 years of my life, if not more (currently 47), so I certainly haven't short changed myself. I continuously try to re-evaluate my perspective on the issue. I suppose that is why I read and participate in threads like these in the first place.

It does sound like you have given God a fair go and I also applaud you for being open to re-evaluate.

I think examples are helpful to explain how objective data can be "wrong".

In medicine we call it clinical reasoning. We are taught to treat the patient, not the numbers. We are constantly collecting objective data about patients with obs, blood tests, ECGs and there is a temptation to do something when we see numbers outside of normal ranges. But often the right thing to do is pay attention to the subjective data of the symptoms the patient initially came with or are currently experiencing to create an overall picture that allows us to make sound judgement about whether those abnormal readings are error, normal variation or true pathology.

In the court system, there may be objective physical evidence that the defendant was at the scene of the crime with the means to carry out the crime and highly probable as the only person in a position to do so, but if their subjective testimony convincing suggests they had no motive is that reasonable doubt?

All data, whether subjective or objective must be collected, interpreted and communicated. And with each step there is error and bias, sometimes intentional and other times unintentional. Subjective data is often more prone to those errors/biases and we rightly give priority to more objective data for things where objective data is available. But there are times where the subjective data does trump the objective data available to us when sound reasoning is used.

With regard to God, there is lots of subjective evidence for God that we rightly question, some of which may be more credible than others. But there is also objective data about God that we can interpret and we do so differently because of our worldviews. Where a materialistic naturalist sees randomness without meaning or purpose, I see created scientific order. I would posit that both the Big Bang and Evolution are not driven by randomness even if you look at them just from a scientific perspective.

The Big Bang theory follows a clear set of physical laws of the universe, some of which we have come to understand such as relativity, the speed of light, cosmic microwave radiation, subatomic forces, etc. We make sense of our observations because of those "laws" of nature.

Evolution proceeds by natural selection, which depends on some randomness found in genetic variability, but is not in itself a random phenomenon. It has a clear purpose to allows for life to diversify and adapt to a multitude of harsh environments.

How we interpret this objective evidence obviously varies.

"For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God." Romans 1:20 (NLT)

Our generation feels like we understand this world and this universe and we definitely know more about it than we have ever known before. For some, knowledge of that thing becomes something we then feel we have control over and therefore have "no need for God". But for me, it is a revelation about how little I really do know and how amazing the Creator is.

 

[jonessed]

Didnt you start a thread not too long ago admitting that you cant stop trolling threads when religion pops up, and that you thought this was a flaw?

Yes.

Trolls suck, especially the unfunny ones. Religion is a topic that simply isn't worth discussing in here anymore. It only takes one or two persistent trolls to ruins a thread on any topic really.

 

[Mario Kart]

The universe has always been here. We're the newer entrants into it. The Big Bang allowed us to be here by a star dying and the rebirth of which we see. But, overall, the Universe, what we can see and what we can't, has always been here.

 

[matuski]

Didnt you start a thread not too long ago admitting that you cant stop trolling threads when religion pops up, and that you thought this was a flaw?

Yes.

Trolls suck, especially the unfunny ones. Religion is a topic that simply isn't worth discussing in here anymore. It only takes one or two persistent trolls to ruins a thread on any topic really.

Thin skin. No trolling going on here. I have actually handled this one with kid gloves so far.

 

[tonydead]

You believe it, though. You've never stopped another atheist here from saying it.

I absolutely don't believe it. I can even rank the different religions from my favorite; Buddhism because the don't believe in a deity and concentrate on self, to my least favorite; Islam for obvious reasons.

There are countless posts from you asserting your moral and intellectual superiority over religious people, from the woman sitting next to you on a flight to your quintessentially religious coward of a brother. They're all garbage to you.

I didn't do anything of the sort with that nice lady, I simply answered her question, it's too bad she felt she couldn't continue with a conversation with an atheist. And I think that says something about most religious people in general.

I would never use the adjective coward to describe my brother.

You're relentlessly mean. It's a bit unsettling, actually. If your side was so compelling and so much better, why all the effort towards character assassination?

i apologize for being mean and will try to work on that, however, lets make the distinction between being mean and telling someone something they don't want to hear.

(I doubt the brick-and-mortar version of you really believes this. But if you were accused of participating in religion threads without talking a lot of #### about how inferior religious people are, what evidence is there for a conviction?)

wat?

Show your work. Where did those percentages come from? I'm assuming you aren't making those numbers up to be illustrative because you said "let's be honest". I doubt they are true. How many times have we seen variations on the "I'm just atheistic towards one more God than you" theme? Or references to the thousands of gods throughout history whenever the word"god" comes up?

96% of religious people in America believe in one of the Abrahmic gods. Link You're not being honest with yourself if you don't think the majority of these debates here are really about the Abrahamic god.

Do you think it's possible for a religious person to believe the Big Bang Theory is true? Can they believe that without also betraying their religion?

Of course I do, people adjust their beliefs all the time to force fit facts. To them they aren't betraying their religion because the give god credit for it.

 

[matuski]

Do you think it's possible for a religious person to believe the Big Bang Theory is true? Can they believe that without also betraying their religion?

Don't see why not. We see it everyday where people can interpret their religion beliefs on anything (politics, sports, romance, movies, TV, etc) to accommodate most anything.

Fixed. It's human nature. Not religiously exclusive. In fact atheists do this just as much if not more to rationalize their beliefs.

I agree 100% that this isn't exclusive to religion. The difference would be in religion, you are interpreting a message from a perfect god. This confuses someone like me when the message seems very imperfect.. enough to allow for a myriad of interpretations.

 

[Galileo]

The thing is, it doesn't matter what anyone believes. Belief in something does not qualify it as truth. Empirical evidence is the only thing that leads to objective truths. This is not to suggest science has all the answers. In fact, science would not exist if all answers were known. Big Bang Theory is not speculation. It is the best explanation of the empirical evidence that currently exists. This theory, like any other scientific theory, continues to evolve as new information is incorporated into the existing body of evidence. As that process plays out we discover more and more truths about our universe. Although the ultimate answer to the question of how the universe began may never fully be known, it is ONLY the scientific method that can bring us closer to knowing and give us the potential of knowing.

I agree totally with you about the Big Bang. It is not just speculation and there is a significant body of evidence to support it. And with all scientific endevour, it changes as new evidence comes to light.

I also agree with you that belief in something does not make it true. But also, just because something is scientific does not make it true. Scientific evidence is far from the only source of evidence and as you are aware, has error and bias.

As a medical doctor, I am weighing objective and subjective evidence on a daily basis to arrive at the truth of a diagnosis. Many of our diagnoses are based purely on subjective evidence and the absence of objective findings to the contrary. Additionally I am expected to be able to appraise the quality different levels of scientific evidence about diseases, tests and management for all sorts of bias. For instance, drug studies performed by pharmaceutical companies are viewed differently to more independent reviewers. In this Icelandic study, it appears to be funded by an explicitly atheist group which does puts it under the microscope more.

Finally, objective truth is only a small portion of the truth that matters in life. We try to discover truth by gathering as much objective evidence as we can, but ultimately our decisions about truth are stongly based on subjective information and may even be contrary to the objective data that we have.

Does this woman really love me? Should I trust her and commit my life to her? Is this witness's testimony credible? Is this babysitter trustworthy? Will the patriots win the Super Bowl?

For me, the existence of God has a lot of non-emperical evidence that may be non-scientific and difficult to test scientifically, but that is true of a lot of important things in life. And maybe you have seriously considered it and found it wanting. That is your prerogative but I hope you don't short change yourself of an honest exploration into one of the biggest questions in life and human history.

I fully agree with the first part of the bolded statement. It is impossible for us to have first hand experience with many things in life. As such we must put a certain amount of faith into those sources we deem to be credible. Our perception of what is true definitely has a subjective component. However, I think it would be nonsensical to hold on to perceptions of truth in the face of objective data to the contrary.

For me, the existence of a creator god has no empirical evidence, and is impossible to test scientifically. It is difficult to comment on your non-empirical evidence for god. We are all unique, and I obviously do not share your experience in life. If you rolled out your list of non-empirical evidence, I would likely either find most of it lacking substance or see it as evidence for something completely different than a deity. This is not meant to be disrespectful. It is merely an expectation that my interpretation of such "evidence" would be vastly different from your interpretation. I was raised in the Catholic faith and attended Catholic schools. My wife is a devout Catholic. I feel that I understand the Christian perspective pretty well. I have contemplated the question of God's existence for at least 35 years of my life, if not more (currently 47), so I certainly haven't short changed myself. I continuously try to re-evaluate my perspective on the issue. I suppose that is why I read and participate in threads like these in the first place.

It does sound like you have given God a fair go and I also applaud you for being open to re-evaluate.

I think examples are helpful to explain how objective data can be "wrong".

In medicine we call it clinical reasoning. We are taught to treat the patient, not the numbers. We are constantly collecting objective data about patients with obs, blood tests, ECGs and there is a temptation to do something when we see numbers outside of normal ranges. But often the right thing to do is pay attention to the subjective data of the symptoms the patient initially came with or are currently experiencing to create an overall picture that allows us to make sound judgement about whether those abnormal readings are error, normal variation or true pathology.

In the court system, there may be objective physical evidence that the defendant was at the scene of the crime with the means to carry out the crime and highly probable as the only person in a position to do so, but if their subjective testimony convincing suggests they had no motive is that reasonable doubt?

All data, whether subjective or objective must be collected, interpreted and communicated. And with each step there is error and bias, sometimes intentional and other times unintentional. Subjective data is often more prone to those errors/biases and we rightly give priority to more objective data for things where objective data is available. But there are times where the subjective data does trump the objective data available to us when sound reasoning is used.

With regard to God, there is lots of subjective evidence for God that we rightly question, some of which may be more credible than others. But there is also objective data about God that we can interpret and we do so differently because of our worldviews. Where a materialistic naturalist sees randomness without meaning or purpose, I see created scientific order. I would posit that both the Big Bang and Evolution are not driven by randomness even if you look at them just from a scientific perspective.

The Big Bang theory follows a clear set of physical laws of the universe, some of which we have come to understand such as relativity, the speed of light, cosmic microwave radiation, subatomic forces, etc. We make sense of our observations because of those "laws" of nature.

Evolution proceeds by natural selection, which depends on some randomness found in genetic variability, but is not in itself a random phenomenon. It has a clear purpose to allows for life to diversify and adapt to a multitude of harsh environments.

How we interpret this objective evidence obviously varies.

"For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God." Romans 1:20 (NLT)

Our generation feels like we understand this world and this universe and we definitely know more about it than we have ever known before. For some, knowledge of that thing becomes something we then feel we have control over and therefore have "no need for God". But for me, it is a revelation about how little I really do know and how amazing the Creator is.

I think the bolded is a critical piece of this discussion. I envision science (when done correctly) as using data/observation/evidence (whether objective or subjective) to develop and shape a worldview that is most plausible. In this way the nature of the universe is discovered. I see religions as having a fairly well defined worldview and then the data/observations/evidence trying to be retroactively fit into that existing schema. The former has always seemed more logical and satisfying for me. I think having a presupposed outcome creates a greater likelyhood of the subjective things being interpreted in a biased way.

 

[FUBAR]

OTOH, the universe appears to have been created by trolls.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Do you think it's possible for a religious person to believe the Big Bang Theory is true? Can they believe that without also betraying their religion?

There are like 10,000 things in the bible that get completely ignored. For many, the creation story (other than a nice story to tell their kids) is one of them. It seems like the majority of Christians believe in the scientific, not biblical explanation of the creation of the universe.

You could probably even argue that its a minority that interpret the majority of the events in the bible literally, instead treating them as a metaphor. Why would the creation story be any different?

 

[tonydead]

With regard to God, there is lots of subjective evidence for God that we rightly question, some of which may be more credible than others. But there is also objective data about God that we can interpret and we do so differently because of our worldviews. Where a materialistic naturalist sees randomness without meaning or purpose, I see created scientific order. I would posit that both the Big Bang and Evolution are not driven by randomness even if you look at them just from a scientific perspective.

Would love to hear some of this 'subjective evidence' and 'objective data' that you have for God. Earlier you called it non-empirical evidence, which I would agree with. Why the change? So far the only thing I've heard you describe is that scientific order somehow implies a creator and randomness implies natural selection or evolution.

Evolution being random is a myth. See Fred Hoyle's Ultimate Boeing 747. Evolution is not random, the genetic variation on which natural selection acts may be random, but the natural selection of itself is not. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the way its inherited traits function in it's local environment. Evolution takes care of itself.

If order and pattern tells you there must be creator, then Evolution was definitely created. But that just takes us back to the who created the creator argument. Do you have other subjective evidence?

 

[Galileo]

The universe has always been here. We're the newer entrants into it. The Big Bang allowed us to be here by a star dying and the rebirth of which we see. But, overall, the Universe, what we can see and what we can't, has always been here.

I would ask "what evidence do you have to support this?" A statement like this seems rather speculative to me, and I would classify this in much the same way as a religious explanation. I am not suggesting there is no room for speculation. Creative speculation often points us in a new direction to look for evidence and alternate explanations. But to draw a speculative conclusion doesn't carry much weight in my view.

 

[Galileo]

For the record, I am also a little hesitant to think of the Big Bang Theory as an explanation of creation. I do think the Big Bang Theory provides a well supported, albeit still incomplete, explanation for the evolution of the universe from the earliest moments AFTER such a bang would have occurred. It never attempts to explain the cause or source of the actual "bang". To attempt to describe anything before 10^-43s (a small amount of time, indeed!) after such an event would be only unfounded speculation. Physics as we currently understand it, simply can not do this. It certainly paints a picture for when the universe appears to have begun. I will leave the story of the actual moment of creation in the realm of "I don't know", and I am OK with that. I do not feel the need to fill the gap with speculation, but it can be fun to think of the possibilities!

 

[Steve Tasker]

For the record, I am also a little hesitant to think of the Big Bang Theory as an explanation of creation. I do think the Big Bang Theory provides a well supported, albeit still incomplete, explanation for the evolution of the universe from the earliest moments AFTER such a bang would have occurred. It never attempts to explain the cause or source of the actual "bang". To attempt to describe anything before 10^-43s (a small amount of time, indeed!) after such an event would be only unfounded speculation. Physics as we currently understand it, simply can not do this. It certainly paints a picture for when the universe appears to have begun. I will leave the story of the actual moment of creation in the realm of "I don't know", and I am OK with that. I do not feel the need to fill the gap with speculation, but it can be fun to think of the possibilities!

This is a much better articulation of why I voted "other". I simply don't know. Whatever that other is, however, I am pretty certain it was not created by a god/gods.

 

[NREC34]

For the record, I am also a little hesitant to think of the Big Bang Theory as an explanation of creation. I do think the Big Bang Theory provides a well supported, albeit still incomplete, explanation for the evolution of the universe from the earliest moments AFTER such a bang would have occurred. It never attempts to explain the cause or source of the actual "bang". To attempt to describe anything before 10^-43s (a small amount of time, indeed!) after such an event would be only unfounded speculation. Physics as we currently understand it, simply can not do this. It certainly paints a picture for when the universe appears to have begun. I will leave the story of the actual moment of creation in the realm of "I don't know", and I am OK with that. I do not feel the need to fill the gap with speculation, but it can be fun to think of the possibilities!

This is a much better articulation of why I voted "other". I simply don't know. Whatever that other is, however, I am pretty certain it was not created by a god/gods.

That's where I am too. When I'm close to the end maybe I will join a church. Why not buy a powerball ticket just in case? That's about the odds as I see it of them having it right.

Certainly not going to sacrifice my Sundays and 10% of my money on it right now. If that's what people want to do though it's a free country. I don't really care until they start trying to force their beliefs on us all via laws, etc.

 

[FUBAR]

For the record, I am also a little hesitant to think of the Big Bang Theory as an explanation of creation. I do think the Big Bang Theory provides a well supported, albeit still incomplete, explanation for the evolution of the universe from the earliest moments AFTER such a bang would have occurred. It never attempts to explain the cause or source of the actual "bang". To attempt to describe anything before 10^-43s (a small amount of time, indeed!) after such an event would be only unfounded speculation. Physics as we currently understand it, simply can not do this. It certainly paints a picture for when the universe appears to have begun. I will leave the story of the actual moment of creation in the realm of "I don't know", and I am OK with that. I do not feel the need to fill the gap with speculation, but it can be fun to think of the possibilities!

This is a much better articulation of why I voted "other". I simply don't know. Whatever that other is, however, I am pretty certain it was not created by a god/gods.

agreed, except it's easier to explain/understand (IMO anyway) if there is a God to start everything. I'm in the "I think the BBT makes sense, but I'm not sure, but I think God started all of this, but I'm not sure..." group. Can't prove there is a god, can't prove the negative; so as long as everyone remains civil, it's an interesting topic to discuss.

 

[matuski]

Thank you mods.

 

[Thorn]

Didnt you start a thread not too long ago admitting that you cant stop trolling threads when religion pops up, and that you thought this was a flaw?

Nope. Was an effort to figure out why people go straight to butthurt.

I got my answer.

eta - If you look at this thread, I have been fairly soft imo. I have responded in kind, and stayed away from joining in the insults. I'm working on it.

What answer did you get?

 

[matuski]

Didnt you start a thread not too long ago admitting that you cant stop trolling threads when religion pops up, and that you thought this was a flaw?

Nope. Was an effort to figure out why people go straight to butthurt.

I got my answer.

eta - If you look at this thread, I have been fairly soft imo. I have responded in kind, and stayed away from joining in the insults. I'm working on it.

What answer did you get?

I wasn't apologizing for my perspective.. trying to figure out if I could deliver it better. The answer was yes and no.

Yes, I can soften up a bit.

No, no matter how the message is delivered - some people just aren't going to handle being challenged on religious beliefs very well. The fact is I am saying what a lot of people don't want to hear.

 

[Steve Tasker]

For the record, I am also a little hesitant to think of the Big Bang Theory as an explanation of creation. I do think the Big Bang Theory provides a well supported, albeit still incomplete, explanation for the evolution of the universe from the earliest moments AFTER such a bang would have occurred. It never attempts to explain the cause or source of the actual "bang". To attempt to describe anything before 10^-43s (a small amount of time, indeed!) after such an event would be only unfounded speculation. Physics as we currently understand it, simply can not do this. It certainly paints a picture for when the universe appears to have begun. I will leave the story of the actual moment of creation in the realm of "I don't know", and I am OK with that. I do not feel the need to fill the gap with speculation, but it can be fun to think of the possibilities!

This is a much better articulation of why I voted "other". I simply don't know. Whatever that other is, however, I am pretty certain it was not created by a god/gods.

agreed, except it's easier to explain/understand (IMO anyway) if there is a God to start everything. I'm in the "I think the BBT makes sense, but I'm not sure, but I think God started all of this, but I'm not sure..." group. Can't prove there is a god, can't prove the negative; so as long as everyone remains civil, it's an interesting topic to discuss.

Personally, I think the default explanation of a god creation feels hollow, somewhat intellectually disingenuous. There are some things that will never be proven in my lifetime, and I'm pretty sure the creation of the universe will be one of them. And I'm okay with not knowing. I don't NEED to know. But I could see how it would be important for believers to know, or at least be convinced that they know, whether or not they're actually incorrect....it is the first passage of the Bible, after all. The story of creation can be construed as a metaphor, of course, but it's still a pretty fundamental tenet of Christianity that there is an all-knowing god who created life.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I think the bolded is a critical piece of this discussion. I envision science (when done correctly) as using data/observation/evidence (whether objective or subjective) to develop and shape a worldview that is most plausible. In this way the nature of the universe is discovered. I see religions as having a fairly well defined worldview and then the data/observations/evidence trying to be retroactively fit into that existing schema. The former has always seemed more logical and satisfying for me. I think having a presupposed outcome creates a greater likelyhood of the subjective things being interpreted in a biased way.

I understand this hope of developing a worldview that is as unbiased as possible. But I believe it is based on this false premise that we truly can shape a worldview that is a) independent of any presuppositions b) only based on observable evidence.

We are always influenced by what has happened before whether we know it or not, through our childhoods, our cultures, our relationships, the things we read, etc. Many of those values and beliefs have been passed on from thousands of years and once the enter our lives, they influence us in some way. Sometimes it is towards those same values and beliefs and at other times it is in the opposite direction, but either way, they influence us.

There is the idea that given enough time and enough "good" science, all truth can be discovered through the sciences. But that is a presupposition that I believe to be false because there are so many things in this world that are unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable and unscientific yet completely true.

I think the better approach which, sounds like you are close to, is to approach any new data (whether that data is objective or subjective) with a solid understanding of our presuppositions and to allow that new data to be evaluated fairly on its merits, allow it to challenge our presuppositions and possibly change them in the context of all the other data we have thus far collected.

This is something we do in medicine all the time as new studies come up all the time, challenging existing guidelines. Sometimes they affect our practice profoundly or in certain specific situations and sometimes they don't change things at all.

I like to think that this is the approach I also take to any data that may challenge my views on God, Christianity and my own worldview. Not everyone can have this kind of approach to faith and not everyone needs to. But religious faith is not always about fitting things into a presupposed schema.

 

[Galileo]

I think the bolded is a critical piece of this discussion. I envision science (when done correctly) as using data/observation/evidence (whether objective or subjective) to develop and shape a worldview that is most plausible. In this way the nature of the universe is discovered. I see religions as having a fairly well defined worldview and then the data/observations/evidence trying to be retroactively fit into that existing schema. The former has always seemed more logical and satisfying for me. I think having a presupposed outcome creates a greater likelyhood of the subjective things being interpreted in a biased way.

I understand this hope of developing a worldview that is as unbiased as possible. But I believe it is based on this false premise that we truly can shape a worldview that is a) independent of any presuppositions b) only based on observable evidence.

We are always influenced by what has happened before whether we know it or not, through our childhoods, our cultures, our relationships, the things we read, etc. Many of those values and beliefs have been passed on from thousands of years and once the enter our lives, they influence us in some way. Sometimes it is towards those same values and beliefs and at other times it is in the opposite direction, but either way, they influence us.

There is the idea that given enough time and enough "good" science, all truth can be discovered through the sciences. But that is a presupposition that I believe to be false because there are so many things in this world that are unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable and unscientific yet completely true.

I think the better approach which, sounds like you are close to, is to approach any new data (whether that data is objective or subjective) with a solid understanding of our presuppositions and to allow that new data to be evaluated fairly on its merits, allow it to challenge our presuppositions and possibly change them in the context of all the other data we have thus far collected.

This is something we do in medicine all the time as new studies come up all the time, challenging existing guidelines. Sometimes they affect our practice profoundly or in certain specific situations and sometimes they don't change things at all.

I like to think that this is the approach I also take to any data that may challenge my views on God, Christianity and my own worldview. Not everyone can have this kind of approach to faith and not everyone needs to. But religious faith is not always about fitting things into a presupposed schema.

I would love to hear some examples of the first bolded statement. I agree that there are things that are unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable, but I would not classify these things as "truths". The only thing that is true about them is that they are unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable. This puts them in the realm of speculation which can lead to much wishful thinking and hope, but not "truths".

The second bolded statement is the very essence of what organized religion is, IMO.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I think the bolded is a critical piece of this discussion. I envision science (when done correctly) as using data/observation/evidence (whether objective or subjective) to develop and shape a worldview that is most plausible. In this way the nature of the universe is discovered. I see religions as having a fairly well defined worldview and then the data/observations/evidence trying to be retroactively fit into that existing schema. The former has always seemed more logical and satisfying for me. I think having a presupposed outcome creates a greater likelyhood of the subjective things being interpreted in a biased way.

I understand this hope of developing a worldview that is as unbiased as possible. But I believe it is based on this false premise that we truly can shape a worldview that is a) independent of any presuppositions b) only based on observable evidence.

We are always influenced by what has happened before whether we know it or not, through our childhoods, our cultures, our relationships, the things we read, etc. Many of those values and beliefs have been passed on from thousands of years and once the enter our lives, they influence us in some way. Sometimes it is towards those same values and beliefs and at other times it is in the opposite direction, but either way, they influence us.

There is the idea that given enough time and enough "good" science, all truth can be discovered through the sciences. But that is a presupposition that I believe to be false because there are so many things in this world that are unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable and unscientific yet completely true.

I think the better approach which, sounds like you are close to, is to approach any new data (whether that data is objective or subjective) with a solid understanding of our presuppositions and to allow that new data to be evaluated fairly on its merits, allow it to challenge our presuppositions and possibly change them in the context of all the other data we have thus far collected.

This is something we do in medicine all the time as new studies come up all the time, challenging existing guidelines. Sometimes they affect our practice profoundly or in certain specific situations and sometimes they don't change things at all.

I like to think that this is the approach I also take to any data that may challenge my views on God, Christianity and my own worldview. Not everyone can have this kind of approach to faith and not everyone needs to. But religious faith is not always about fitting things into a presupposed schema.

I would love to hear some examples of the first bolded statement. I agree that there are things that are unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable, but I would not classify these things as "truths". The only thing that is true about them is that they are unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable. This puts them in the realm of speculation which can lead to much wishful thinking and hope, but not "truths".

The second bolded statement is the very essence of what organized religion is, IMO.

We can all observe a work of art and appreciate its beauty. But the actual beauty itself is not something that is observable, measurable or testable. You can observe the actions and words that I use to express my love for my wife. But you cannot observe my love or even know if I am just a very good actor.

Is the beauty of that work of art something that is true? Is my love true?

If your presupposition is that the only things that are true are those things that are observable, measurable and testable then I would say you are ruling out a lot of very common things that are true. I am not even talking about things we normally call "supernatural".

Science is a very useful tool at our disposal for answering certain types of questions. But to use it beyond those parameters is an abuse.

 

[matuski]

I think the bolded is a critical piece of this discussion. I envision science (when done correctly) as using data/observation/evidence (whether objective or subjective) to develop and shape a worldview that is most plausible. In this way the nature of the universe is discovered. I see religions as having a fairly well defined worldview and then the data/observations/evidence trying to be retroactively fit into that existing schema. The former has always seemed more logical and satisfying for me. I think having a presupposed outcome creates a greater likelyhood of the subjective things being interpreted in a biased way.

I understand this hope of developing a worldview that is as unbiased as possible. But I believe it is based on this false premise that we truly can shape a worldview that is a) independent of any presuppositions b) only based on observable evidence.

We are always influenced by what has happened before whether we know it or not, through our childhoods, our cultures, our relationships, the things we read, etc. Many of those values and beliefs have been passed on from thousands of years and once the enter our lives, they influence us in some way. Sometimes it is towards those same values and beliefs and at other times it is in the opposite direction, but either way, they influence us.

There is the idea that given enough time and enough "good" science, all truth can be discovered through the sciences. But that is a presupposition that I believe to be false because there are so many things in this world that are unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable and unscientific yet completely true.

I think the better approach which, sounds like you are close to, is to approach any new data (whether that data is objective or subjective) with a solid understanding of our presuppositions and to allow that new data to be evaluated fairly on its merits, allow it to challenge our presuppositions and possibly change them in the context of all the other data we have thus far collected.

This is something we do in medicine all the time as new studies come up all the time, challenging existing guidelines. Sometimes they affect our practice profoundly or in certain specific situations and sometimes they don't change things at all.

I like to think that this is the approach I also take to any data that may challenge my views on God, Christianity and my own worldview. Not everyone can have this kind of approach to faith and not everyone needs to. But religious faith is not always about fitting things into a presupposed schema.

I would love to hear some examples of the first bolded statement. I agree that there are things that are unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable, but I would not classify these things as "truths". The only thing that is true about them is that they are unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable. This puts them in the realm of speculation which can lead to much wishful thinking and hope, but not "truths".

The second bolded statement is the very essence of what organized religion is, IMO.

We can all observe a work of art and appreciate its beauty. But the actual beauty itself is not something that is observable, measurable or testable. You can observe the actions and words that I use to express my love for my wife. But you cannot observe my love or even know if I am just a very good actor.

Is the beauty of that work of art something that is true? Is my love true?

If your presupposition is that the only things that are true are those things that are observable, measurable and testable then I would say you are ruling out a lot of very common things that are true. I am not even talking about things we normally call "supernatural".

Science is a very useful tool at our disposal for answering certain types of questions. But to use it beyond those parameters is an abuse.

That is the presupposition you want it to be, but I think you understand by now that this is misrepresenting it.

The question is what evidence, whether you label it objective/subjective/non-empirical/whatever... do/did you use to come to the conclusion that a supernatural invisible being is responsible for any of these emotions you are appealing to here?

That is one leap (to inject a supernatural god into the equation). The next question would be: Once you decided based upon the evidence you have that it was indeed the result of a supernatural being - how did you narrow it down to one specific god, what were your methods for eliminating all other gods as equally valid explanations?

 

[tonydead]

We can all observe a work of art and appreciate its beauty. But the actual beauty itself is not something that is observable, measurable or testable. You can observe the actions and words that I use to express my love for my wife. But you cannot observe my love or even know if I am just a very good actor.
Is the beauty of that work of art something that is true? Is my love true?

If your presupposition is that the only things that are true are those things that are observable, measurable and testable then I would say you are ruling out a lot of very common things that are true. I am not even talking about things we normally call "supernatural".

Science is a very useful tool at our disposal for answering certain types of questions. But to use it beyond those parameters is an abuse.

Ah, love and beauty.

Beauty is very measurable and observable. You said so in your first sentence. We even assign value to those paintings you described. I've received a grade on every project in every art class I've ever taken. There are tons of objective evidence for your love of your wife. Your marriage certificate and lack of a record of divorce are very tangible. If I interviewed another family member or even your neighbor I would get all sorts of information that would be considered evidence that I could measure towards your love of your wife. This reminds me of one of my favorite jokes:

Three men are interviewing for a job a the CIA. They are told to bring their wives to the interview. One man is an older gentleman, one is middle aged and one is young. The young man leaves his wife in the lobby and goes into the Director's office for the interview. The Director says, "I want to test your loyalty to us, take this gun and go out into the lobby and shoot your wife.". The young man leaves and after a quiet moment or two comes back in to the Director's office and says, "I can't do it, we're young and just married, I love my wife.". The older gentleman shows up to the interview and the Director asks him to do the same thing. The older gentleman leaves and after a quiet moment or two comes back and says, "I can't do it, we've been married 25 years, have had many children together and grand children, I love my wife.". Finally the middle aged man shows up to the interview and again the Director asks him to do the same thing. The middle aged man leaves, two shots ring out and then there is a loud commotion. The middle aged man comes back and says, "That gun you gave me had blanks in it, I had to strangle the #####!".

Although that hypothetical test was designed to test the loyalty of potential CIA agents, surely you can see how that would be a test for their love for their wife.

Instead of saying you can't test or measure love or beauty therefore God. I think you meant to say, without putting words in your mouth, that love and beauty are so wonderful and hard to measure or explain they must come from God. Much like the argument for morality or emotion is often posed. But, that isn't true either and they are perfectly explained by evolution. You are attracted to your wife because you want to procreate with her. From what little I know about you I am willing to bet you have children. You love her as a part of your survival instinct to protect the family. You are, we all are, selfish with our genes.