Deconstructing god, and why I don't believe

[HYHYBT]

You've got this in the wrong order. It should be:

---Quote---
1. If the supernatural existed, we could test it, theorise it, quantify it, etc.

See, that statement itself is quite an assertion to make with no proof offered.

[Ghel]

See, that statement itself is quite an assertion to make with no proof offered.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Perhaps I could explain the logic a different way. If something has an effect on the natural world (i.e. the one we live in), then there should be evidence of it. Supernatural things, by definition, exist outside the natural world. Thus far, no verifiable evidence has been found to support supernatural things that have an effect on the natural world. (If there was, it would be front page news. Conspiracy theories aside, real evidence of supernatural claims would turn our understanding of the universe on its ear.) Without evidence for its existence, there's no good reason to believe that anything supernatural exists.

[Slytovhand]

You're right, Ghel, it should be in that order... and that's the difference between science and scientists. They don't work that way. They go the route I outlined. In that link I provided, I did note that Quantum Consciousness hypotheses were giving an inroad to a theory of reincarnation... thus what was once 'supernatural' is becoming 'natural'. Similarly, the idea of Qi, essential to Traditional Chinese Medicine and other disciplines, is also gaining some merit, as we see evidences ('proofs') showing up... and yet, I still hear the "If the "supernatural" had an effect on the real world, there would be evidence for it" line get bandied about! Has science really so easily forgotten itself?? What it has done?

Let me hypothesise a variant of reality... all 'Gods' are actually entities which exist in a close dimension (for want of a better word - it's an example, after all!). They are, on occasions, able to interact with this dimension, in ways that have tangible effects - they trigger off certain things - sights, smells, rain, etc. This only happens spasmodically (sort of like the weather here!) - it's 'determinable' (Like the weather), but not consistent enough to make good predictions on (like the weather). Our science can't see a pattern going on, and thus can't check to see if the hypothesis works at the moment, for 2 reasons. 1, it's not consistent enough from our end to make calculations. 2, scientists are too blind to accept a possibility, because it falls into the 'supernatural mumbo-jumbo' category. It is 'supernatural' merely because it hasn't been qualified, tested, theorised, etc... yet, at some stage in the future, when it has been, it will be an intrinsic part of scientific theory (after all - it's about inter-dimensional effects!)

You see, Science wants it both ways.... if ever there was a religion or belief that truly 100% believed it was right, and all the others that didn't believe it were wrong, science is really it! It's either natural and we have already theorised it, quantified it, tested it, evaluated it, and proved it.... or it doesn't exist (like the 'supernatural'). There's no "I don't know" middle ground. There's no 'uncertainty'. There's no 'doubt'. And there's no room for silly, wishy-washy 'agnosticism'. (and certainly no room for a religious or spiritual believer!)

Let me 'prove' this to you! Let's take ghosts for the example. Ghosts are poo-pooed in the scientific community- not real, all made up, all in one's imagination. Where's the 'disproof' for this? Well, some investigations have shown there to be other more plausible solutions. Fine. Good! There should be (some people really are gullible!). OTOH, some have not. An investigation has been done, and the results 'inconclusive'. Science still says "there must be some other 'natural' explanation"! Why?? I can think of a reason - ego! I say this because... let's say, some scientists decide to go and actively test various hypotheses for the existence of ghosts - firstly that they really do exists. Before they've even set foot out of the lab, they will be criticised and ridiculed in the scientific community! Even trying to find evidence gets met with an opinion. Science has already found 'the TRUTH', and no-one is allowed to go against it! Any evidence, any findings, that this group may bring back will be resoundedly attacked and ridiculed and criticised - even before it's been looked at in detail! Especially before anyone else has tried to duplicate the research!

Because there's no good reason to believe that it (reincarnation) exists. Because there's much more important things to spend research money on.

A: yes, there is! Other than the anecdotal evidence of tens of thousands of years (which science seems to just love to disprove), there is the link that I provided above. Also, plenty of psychiatrists, psychologists and hypnotherapists will tell you they have plenty of 'evidence' as well. No, they aren't 'proof', and it's not supposed to be - but it is 'a good reason'... or do you disagree??

B: What????? You are seriously trying to tell me that 'proving' that reincarnation exists wouldn't have a massive and dramatic effect upon humanity? The scientific community would have to do some serious re-alignment in its thinking, and the nature of religion would have a fit! It could quite simply be the biggest thing to change this planet - EVER! In every single field of human endeavour, there would be change in attitude! (especially since, once it had been scientifically proven, the next steps would be to consistently reproduce the results, and to see just how far back people can get memory recall.. let alone the theories and research into just where a 'soul' goes, what happens there, how it connects with 'down here', what else is possible, etc etc etc).

And you're right - science is not a religion.. but scientists have turned it into one! To be a good scientist is to have an open-mind... not many open-minded scientists around, unfortunately.

The world, the universe, is not limited to merely what Earth 2010 scientists say exists.. and that's the problem - it believes it is. Sure, some say it's not, but from discussions like this, it's quite clear that that is the general attitude!

When was the last time that a theist discovered that there was evidence that contradicted his beliefs and changed his beliefs as a result?

A hell of a lot more often than the other way around! Take a look on this board - there are quite a few people on here who said that once they believed, but now do not, or have changed direction to something else. And, then, there's Talon who said before about if someone close to him died, he'd probably seek a religious solution (for a while). IIRC, atheism is the fastest growing 'religion' in the USA - no?? (by converts, not by births or immigration).


(let me point out, I'm not even remotely against 'science'. I'm vehemently against ignorance, and scientists have proven themselves both ignorant, and arrogant. Every good scientist should be agnostic... there is insufficient evidence to support the hypothesis, and there is no current way to do any verifiable testing to dis-prove it's existence. Ergo, the question remains open, uncertainty exists, agnosticism is the only reasonable stance to take - well, barring a spiritual encounter of some type on a personal level, of course. It falls into the same category as aliens... don't know, can't say - so I won't say).

[Ghel]

Let me hypothesise a variant of reality... all 'Gods' are actually entities which exist in a close dimension (for want of a better word - it's an example, after all!). They are, on occasions, able to interact with this dimension, in ways that have tangible effects - they trigger off certain things - sights, smells, rain, etc.

You should write science fiction.

Our science can't see a pattern going on, and thus can't check to see if the hypothesis works at the moment...

Then how do we tell the difference between this and random events?

You see, Science wants it both ways.... if ever there was a religion or belief that truly 100% believed it was right, and all the others that didn't believe it were wrong, science is really it! It's either natural and we have already theorised it, quantified it, tested it, evaluated it, and proved it.... or it doesn't exist (like the 'supernatural').

Ghosts are poo-pooed in the scientific community- not real, all made up, all in one's imagination. Where's the 'disproof' for this?

...there is insufficient evidence to support the hypothesis, and there is no current way to do any verifiable testing to dis-prove it's existence.

You really don't understand the scientific method, do you? I suggest you pick up a highschool level textbook on the subject.

Regarding ghosts, you don't get your evidence from popular tv shows, such as Ghost Hunters, do you? The people on these shows are not scientists. They have no credentials. They're just a bunch of hacks trying to make money on people's superstitions. If they really wanted to see if there were ghosts, they would make sure the building was empty, set up all their equipment, and lock the place as they leave for the night. But if they did that, they wouldn't get shadowy figures standing behind people as the camera moves, echoed footsteps to slow down or speed up until it sounds like a voice, or drafts blowing on people so they can say, "I just felt something!"

... anecdotal evidence of tens of thousands of years ...

Anecdotal evidence is just that. The older it is, the less valuable it is. Anecdotal evidence can be a starting point, but nothing more. It can be a basis for formulating a theory, but it always requires further testing to verify that it is what it appears to be.

B: What????? You are seriously trying to tell me that 'proving' that reincarnation exists wouldn't have a massive and dramatic effect upon humanity?

Of course it would. But there's no good evidence for reincarnation, and so no good reason to spend money on researching it.

And you're right - science is not a religion.. but scientists have turned it into one! To be a good scientist is to have an open-mind... not many open-minded scientists around, unfortunately.

People should be open-minded, sure. Just not so open-minded that their brains fall out.

Take a look on this board - there are quite a few people on here who said that once they believed, but now do not, or have changed direction to something else.

This is a fallacy from small sample size. At most, a few dozen people post to a particular thread on this board. There are over 6 billion people on this planet. Not only that, but the threads that you're referencing specifically asked for people's deconversion stories.

[Rapscallion]

Let me 'prove' this to you! Let's take ghosts for the example. Ghosts are poo-pooed in the scientific community- not real, all made up, all in one's imagination. Where's the 'disproof' for this? Well, some investigations have shown there to be other more plausible solutions. Fine. Good! There should be (some people really are gullible!). OTOH, some have not. An investigation has been done, and the results 'inconclusive'. Science still says "there must be some other 'natural' explanation"! Why?? I can think of a reason - ego! I say this because... let's say, some scientists decide to go and actively test various hypotheses for the existence of ghosts - firstly that they really do exists. Before they've even set foot out of the lab, they will be criticised and ridiculed in the scientific community! Even trying to find evidence gets met with an opinion. Science has already found 'the TRUTH', and no-one is allowed to go against it! Any evidence, any findings, that this group may bring back will be resoundedly attacked and ridiculed and criticised - even before it's been looked at in detail! Especially before anyone else has tried to duplicate the research!

Slight problem with your hypothesis here.

"How about this example?"

Scientist looks at it. "Nope - caused by X and replicable."

"How about this one?"

*sciency science* "Nope - replicable by Y."

"Got a new one!"

*Sciency science* "Nope. Z causes this effect."

Repeat ad nauseum from people who really want a certain end result to be true and it's pretty easy to get frustrated and point out that the person wanting the end result to be true is wrong. The real issue is that there are people who will believe a certain end result no matter how many times their supporting evidence is shown to be flawed in some way.

They want ghosts to be real to give some sort of meaning to their lives.

They want a paradise to await them after death, so they'll support any claims and other doctrines that back up this idea.

They want UFOs and aliens to be real, so every photo of a flying dustbin lid is evidence of a new approach by extra-terrestials.

At some point, the scientists have to point out that enough is enough. The same ground has been trod many times. Much time has been wasted in pointing out to time and again that their pet theory (unicorns, loch ness monster, whatever) that could have been spent doing something useful (peeling grapes for me, for example).

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

You really don't understand the scientific method, do you? I suggest you pick up a highschool level textbook on the subject.

Chemistry, Biology and Biochemistry, actually, and not including the other human sciences, 3 or 4 years of it...

The problem isn't the scientific method, it's those who claim to follow it rigourously. As I said at the end, there is insufficient evidence both for and against, does not make it false! Science, and with the scientific method, everything hangs in limbo until proven false!

Science isn't supposed to 'prove' anything - it, by its own definition, can't. Science can only tell what is, what has been observed, it shouldn't be saying what might be... or what might not. Scientists do that!

Regarding ghosts, you don't get your evidence from popular tv shows, such as Ghost Hunters, do you? <snip>

No, I don't. Do you??

Then how do we tell the difference between this and random events?

Damn! Those scientists have a problem then, don't they???

Not the one I was looking for - but on Super-heavy atoms
Quote - "But one atom is all that's needed to confirm the existence of a new element". So, months and years of research, millions of dollars spent, and they only need 1 atom!!! How 'random' is that looking to you? (probably why said scientists got 'criticised'... but 1 of them is right, for all the criticism - hey??) Even if the experiment is repeated, and that atom gets discovered, that doesn't 'prove' that the Israeli's actually discovered it the first time.. they could have been, coincidentally, wrong.

You should write science fiction.

Why? Because I have experienced things that don't fall well into a current scientific view of the universe, yet find too unlikely to put down to delusion, and I require some sort of 'explanation' for it all that borders on logical and sane??

And that's the problem and which gets my goat about this whole argument. Basically - if you say you've experienced (or just believe) something which science has yet to prove (or adequately theorise), then you are just suffering from a delusion. Scientists won't allow for the possibility that they are the one's who are wrong. This thread would suggest that I should go with the idea that I have been deluded as the most plausible explanation. Not knowing, and not retaining doubts, is not seen as a valid option (as per the OP). (reminds me of the Black and White thinking thread....)

Of course it would. But there's no good evidence for reincarnation, and so no good reason to spend money on researching it.

You really didn't read that link I gave, did you? Or, have you already researched the entire methodology used, and came to the same conclusions as Stevenson's critics, and you are fully conversant with the facts involved? (For those that missed it,

"Stevenson argued that the 3,000 or so cases he studied supported the possibility of reincarnation, though he was always careful to refer to them as "cases suggestive of reincarnation," or "cases of the reincarnation type."

So, 3000 cases by a reputable scientist using (arguably) good scientific rigour isn't considered 'good evidence'?? Crap! No wonder everyone is clamouring for research grants! So, what's the magic number then? 10,000? 15,000? 100,000 cases? All those before you think funding can be justified to be spent on research?

When was the last time that a theist discovered that there was evidence that contradicted his beliefs and changed his beliefs as a result?

Take a look on this board - there are quite a few people on here who said that once they believed, but now do not, or have changed direction to something else.


This is a fallacy from small sample size. At most, a few dozen people post to a particular thread on this board. There are over 6 billion people on this planet. Not only that, but the threads that you're referencing specifically asked for people's deconversion stories.

Ah, no. You asked a direct question, I provided a direct answer. If you had've asked about overall global statistics, yeah, you'd be right. Now, as your question was actually "When was the last time...", sure I failed to answer very well (cos, I don't know about those 6 billion scattered across this planet). But, I did give an answer in response to what I felt was your intent.


Raps - absolutely agreed! BUT... flying dustbin photos do not disprove the idea that aliens exist, and many in the current scientific community will tell you it's statistically improbable that we are alone. Flying dustbin photos also don't stop funding to SETI, but they don't cop the label of nutjobs (as regularly).

My 'hypothesis' is that scientists, in general, will ridicule and criticise any presentation of evidence for, or even the claim that money will be spent on researching, the existence ofanything that is currently considered 'supernatural'. CERN - approximately 2,600 full-time employees, as well as some 7,931 scientists and engineers (representing 580 universities and research facilities and 80 nationalities). Over 1Billion USD in the financial year of 2008. Likely impact research is likely to have on humanity as a whole??? But tell someone they have a research grant of $10,000 to validate claims of reincarnation, and they'll rant about the waste of money that could be spent 'elsewhere'.

Besides, this argument started about 'God', not unicorns. 'God' has never been disproven, yet a stance is taken such that it seems it has.

Thus, my whole stance in this thread - I've not argued for belief in something, only against complete denial... agnostic is a reasonable stance to take... and, so far, I haven't read anywhere that it's not!

[Talon]

IIRC, atheism is the fastest growing 'religion' in the USA - no?? (by converts, not by births or immigration)

First, Atheism is not a religion, any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Second, I can't speak for all Atheists, but in my case my non-belief was a product of reason, logic, and critical thinking. All of which are the polar opposite of faith, and thus anathema to theism. I was never really into science growing up either, so it wasn't a case of "trading in" theism for science.

I've mentioned this in another thread, but it bears repeating. The term 'atheist' is a rather limited descriptor, because it defines people by what they are not. Would we call a Christian an 'Islam-denier'? Or an Orthodox Jew a 'Flying Spaghetti Monster-Rejectionist'? Of course not. I like the term PERList myself, meaning I believe in Physical Evidence, Reason, Logic. Not out of mere "faith" either, because it works. See our first-world modern civilization as proof of that.

[Ghel]

No, I don't. Do you??

I wanted to know where you got your information on research into ghosts. You suggested an investigation where the results were inconclusive. That doesn't mean that the jury is still out regarding the claim "ghosts exist." It means that there's not enough evidence to say that the claim "ghosts exist" is true. Continuing the courtroom analogy, this would be a "not guilty" verdict.

Super-heavy atoms

What does this have to do with your hypothetical situation where a supernatural being from an alternate dimension makes minute changes to the weather patterns in our world?

Basically - if you say you've experienced (or just believe) something which science has yet to prove (or adequately theorise), then you are just suffering from a delusion.

I never said this, and I don't recall Talon saying it, either. But I would say that there is no reason for anybody to agree with your beliefs based on your personal experience. This is what I was talking about earlier regarding anecdotal evidence. If there's some hard evidence regarding your experience, then maybe it's worth looking at. If not, it's just hearsay.

You really didn't read that link I gave, did you?

Sure I did. I also read what was said in the link at the top of the page you linked to. Here it is directly. This page goes into more detail on the criticisms of his research, including several quotes from Stevenson himself, including:

...the evidence is not flawless and it certainly does not compel such a belief [in reincarnation].

I stand behind my statement that there is no good evidence for reincarnation.

Ah, no. You asked a direct question, I provided a direct answer.

You're right. I apologize.

'God' has never been disproven, yet a stance is taken such that it seems it has.

You still don't understand the burden of proof. The person making the claims about the existence of a thing is the one who must supply evidence to support that claim. Until such time as sufficient evidence is found to support the claim, we must reject the claim. There is no need for anyone to disprove the existence of God. That doesn't make any sense.

Thus, my whole stance in this thread - I've not argued for belief in something, only against complete denial... agnostic is a reasonable stance to take... and, so far, I haven't read anywhere that it's not!

Please explain what you mean by "agnostic." You don't seem to be using it in the original meaning: someone who states that they do not or can not know whether a god exists. By this original meaning, an agnostic is an atheist, since they reject the claims of theists.

[HYHYBT]

A related question: suppose a miracle occurs; how would you go about proving it happened, and why would you expect to be able to reproduce the results?

[Slytovhand]

Ill go last first, and I think for good reason:

Agnosticism can be subdivided into several categories. Recently suggested variations include:

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism"):

the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism"):

the view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is evidence we can find something out."

Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism):

the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.[citation needed]

Agnostic atheism:

the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but do not believe in any.[15]

Agnostic theism (also called "spiritual agnosticism"):

The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.

Ignosticism:

the view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a better definition of theism is put forth.

Ok, granted, I presumed (perhaps falsely), that the definition of 'agnostic' in this context was 'Weak Agnostic' - don't know until we get sufficient evidence. Til then... meh. Ie, no definitive claim to know either way. Also ie, not enough proof for, nor against, and so won't make speculation either way. This, I would suspect, is most agnostic's stance.

Agnostic vs Atheist - an atheist claims that a 'god' can not exist - it is simply not possible for such a being to exist at all. An agnostic doesn't make such an extreme claim - it might, it might not.. don't know. Jury is out... (which differs from 'Jury is hung' or 'jury has retired' or 'jury has given a decision based on 'sufficent doubt''). So, even if they 'reject the claims of theists (and quite rightly so), they would just as likely (as in the OP) reject the claims of the atheist as well (and, again, I say - quite rightly so!). There are some atheists who profess science to be what they believe in, who will say something like: we can't prove the existence of God, and we haven't found any evidence to support it's existence (see first argument), therefore God does NOT and can not exist. Simple logical fallacy! Yet, apparently, it's a valid step to take!!

So, jumping back to Talon's post for a tick. Firstly, A: we have a thread on the topic. Besides, when a census is done, where does the 'atheism' box fall?? Hence why I put the little quote marks around the 'religion' word... (although, if 'religion' is defined as 'set of beliefs regarding things considered 'supernatural' and 'God', well, it becomes a religion... )*

I wanted to know where you got your information on research into ghosts.

TBH, it's too long ago for me to recall - over 20 years (which is well before 'Ghosthunters' came out!). There are (well, ok, were... given the date I just suggested) Universities which do research into the Paranormal, from various fields such as the physical sciences (vs parapsychology like telepathy, telekinesis, etc). While many claims investigated give a 'not guilty' verdict, others lead to a 'inconclusive evidence - DA will not yet bring to trial'. ie, there is something going on, but we can find no scientific rational explanation at this stage... warrants further investigation. These are the people who may be termed an 'agnostic', but are heading towards 'believers' - well, in something. Too much 'freaky stuff' for them to say 'definitely not and never could possibly be something else out there'.

Sorry, yeah, that analogy no doubt got lost with the length... all I was trying to indicate was the relevance of 'randomness', which was brought up earlier. That was the only direct link :blush: Which is also what HYHYBT just brought up as well.

You don't believe me??? Wha...??? Why not????? Yeah, ok. And I totally and 100% agree! No, really! I've been in pagan circles for years, and most of them I won't even discuss some of my beliefs nor why! They'd see me as a nut-job... (well, ok, more of a nut-job! And the way they express some of their beliefs, I see as... lame. Eg - "Look what we've done to the planet, that's why we're getting all of these earthquakes and big storms and all these people are dying". Yeah, can't be cos we tend to build on faultlines, and the weather has been like that for... how long have we had an atmosphere now??

Stevenson also quotes: "Stevenson and Tucker consider the evidence inconclusive, though they maintain that reincarnation seems the best explanation in some of their cases".

Ok, and now I've really got to take a big shot at you, Ghel! Way to go on mis-contexting a quote through the liberal art of snippetting! The rest of that quote goes:

Even the best of it is open to alternative interpretations, and one can only censure those who say there is no evidence whatever.

(obviously, my emphasis).

You still don't understand the burden of proof...

But, you are suggesting we accept the claim that God does NOT exist. Rejecting a claim does not automatically mean that it's opposite is true. Where is the proof that 'god' does not exist?? Hence, I shall reiterate, agnosticism is therefore the most reasonable stance to have (given one's definition of the term).


And just a quick one -

If there's some hard evidence regarding your experience, then maybe it's worth looking at. If not, it's just hearsay.

There's not a lot of hard evidence left from one particular rain storm that happened 15 million years ago, but I'm pretty sure it happened! So, like miracles, not likely to happen

*I use those ' ' a lot, to indicate where I'm trying to say 'for a given definition of....'. I know sometimes it's those definitions that create the problem and argument

[Ghel]

...an atheist claims that a 'god' can not exist - it is simply not possible for such a being to exist at all.

No. This is not correct. An atheist is simply someone who lacks a belief in a god. Within that, there is a subset who believes that no gods exist. There are even some atheists who will say "no gods exist" as shorthand for "the various god-claims that I've investigated have no merit, and therefore I believe that no gods exist." However, no atheist will try to defend the claim that no gods exist.

I, personally, believe that no gods exist. However, like most atheists, I leave a tiny little sliver of possibility that a god might exist. Someday, perhaps, I might find evidence that convinces me that a god exists. But that possibility seems so extremely unlikely that I don't want to waste large portions of my life looking for it. I'd rather spend my time enjoying life and figuring out how the world really works.

But, you are suggesting we accept the claim that God does NOT exist.

No, I am not. I am suggesting that we reject the claims that a god exists. I feel that none of the god-claims that are out there have any merit. It is up to the theists (those who believe in a god) to provide evidence to support their claims. Until that time, I don't accept their beliefs, and am thus an atheist.

There are some atheists who profess science to be what they believe in...

Believing in science is not the same thing as believing in a god. Science is something that has been shown to work, again and again. There is no such body of evidence regarding a god.

[re: ghosts]...there is something going on, but we can find no scientific rational explanation at this stage... warrants further investigation.

"Warrants further investigation" is not the same thing as agreeing with the claim. It's not even the same thing as saying that there's enough supporting evidence to think the claim might be true. The "something there" could be anything - it doesn't mean that it's necessarily ghosts. The same goes for the claims of reincarnation.

And just a quick one - There's not a lot of hard evidence left from one particular rain storm that happened 15 million years ago, but I'm pretty sure it happened! So, like miracles, not likely to happen

But there's a huge difference here. One particular rainstorm that happened long before humans existed isn't going to make the slightest difference in anybody's world view. A miracle could radically alter someone's world view.

[Gravekeeper]

Holy crap. Just read this thread and.....yeah. Jesus Christ. ( Because his name sounds the best when taken in vain. ;p )

This argument is it seems mainly directed at western monotheism. Despite a mention of the Greek pantheon.

I however, am more Buddhist then anything else ( Although what I believe is a mishmash of various sources. Including science. ) so imma drag Buddha ( among other things ) into this for a minute. Buddhism is amusing because it farking loves science. Science is the how of Buddha's what if that makes any sense. Personally, I think science is just roadmapping how religion made the dramatic leap from point A to point B to begin with and scratching things off the list as it goes.

With Buddhism, the belief is in a structured universe with a set of systems and mechanisms ( Much like the entirety of existence as we know it so far ) that does continue to extend beyond what we currently are aware of and the reason we cannot grasp the full of it is simply because we have not yet discovered all of these mechanisms. That's what science is for. It is, scientifically speaking, the nature of the universe to continue to evolve. Unfortunately for us, and this argument, we are currently limited to observations of the basic physical nature of our universe alone and are only just beginning to unravel its deepest inner workings.

Cosmology and quantum mechanics are still fucking with us for example.

The inherent point of Buddhism is essentially to prepare you for death and teach you how to navigate the system beyond this life. That's really it, to be honest. Buddha wants you to know how to die and make the most of it without getting stuck back here again. However, Buddha is not a god. He has no supernatural powers over our world. He is not omnipotent nor omniscient. He does not want you to worship him. He doesn't even want you to be Buddhist. He's just a guy that figured something out and cared enough to leave behind some helpful tips for others to follow suit. The Dalai Llama himself will tell you if you can give him a better idea, he'll go with it.

With Buddhism, death ( and any possible rebirth ) are just the result of a natural system similar to every system already found in nature which just happens to extend past what we're currently aware of. Which to me, is logical, as the universe is basically an infinite number of systems and cycles. If indeed there is more beyond what we currently perceive, it must logically also operate in systems and cycles like our physical world already does.

The fact of the matter is, much as we love to tout it, our science is still primitive and there are still many, many things we do not know. Even a briefglance at a topic like quantum mechanics is enough to tell you that. An hour's worth of reading up on the various shit going on beyond our own solar system is enough to make you feel small, confused and terrified. =p

As for this God business. It's not like we don't have scientific theories for God ( Tipler's Omega Point theory for example is an interesting read ). Not the Christian God mind you, as I don't think any sort of being of this kind of nature would align itself with any of our pitiful interpretations of it. Nor do I believe such a consciousness would in any way directly interfere with our universe. That would go against the nature of the system ( which is to evolve of our own accord ). So no miracles or any such things. No appearing in the sky and telling people "Hey do x, y and z and I'll totally let you into my club later." I'm sure he/she/it/them cares, but direct interference defeats the purpose.

We are at the helm of our own ship so to speak, and much like in mortal life are subject to the results of the actions we take within the systems we exist in. We simply do not yet understand all of these systems so we're still taking cracks at it.

Religions are, in a way, scientific theories themselves even if they were originally made by those with far less understanding of the world then ourselves. But in that vein, assuming we already know the entirety of what there is to understand about this world is equally as foolish. Honestly I think we need both. Religions may give you the faith that there is more to the puzzle, but you likewise need science to find out what the pieces to the puzzle are.

Another 2000 years from now I imagine people will be looking back and laughing at the primitive stupidity of our religions and sciences.

Edit: You know, I was going to write a book about this sort of thing. Really should get around to that too. Amongst the other 3 or 4 books I really should write to make people stop telling me I should write a book.

[Hobbs]

A related question: suppose a miracle occurs; how would you go about proving it happened, and why would you expect to be able to reproduce the results?

The criteria for a miracle healing are (taken from another site):

1. must have been instantaneous
2. must have been complete
3. must be permanent
4. cannot be explained by medicine or science.

This site is also useful.

Another good book is The Miracle Detective by Randall Sullivan.

[Ghel]

Hobbs, I love your criteria for a medical miracle. It reminds me of something I read regarding someone visiting the "healing spring" at Lourdes. I'll have to look up the actual passage, but the gist of it was this: The author and his friend visited the spring, and crutches were hanging off the trees all around the spring. The friend whispered to the author, "a single wooden leg would have been more to the point."

[Hobbs]

Hobbs, I love your criteria for a medical miracle. It reminds me of something I read regarding someone visiting the "healing spring" at Lourdes. I'll have to look up the actual passage, but the gist of it was this: The author and his friend visited the spring, and crutches were hanging off the trees all around the spring. The friend whispered to the author, "a single wooden leg would have been more to the point."

You obviously didn't bother with the links I supplied

A miracle is said to be above nature when the effect produced is above the native powers and forces in creatures of which the known laws of nature are the expression, as raising a dead man to life, e.g., Lazarus (John 11), the widow's son (1 Kings 17). A miracle is said to be outside, or beside, nature when natural forces may have the power to produce the effect, at least in part, but could not of themselves alone have produced it in the way it was actually brought about. Thus the effect in abundance far exceeds the power of natural forces, or it takes place instantaneously without the means or processes which nature employs.

The term miracle here implies the direct opposition of the effect actually produced to the natural causes at work, and its imperfect understanding has given rise to much confusion in modern thought. Thus Spinoza calls a miracle a violation of the order of nature (proeverti, "Tract. Theol. Polit.", vi). Hume says it is a "violation" or an "infraction", and many writers — e.g., Martensen, Hodge, Baden-Powell, Theodore Parker — use the term for miracles as a whole. But every miracle is not of necessity contrary to nature, for there are miracles above or outside nature.

Again, the term contrary to nature does not mean "unnatural" in the sense of producing discord and confusion. The forces of nature differ in power and are in constant interaction. This produces interferences and counteractions of forces. This is true of mechanical, chemical, and biological forces.