a case for christ

[timwakefield 68]

Just to clear things up, LoisMustDie, you have to realize that the questions people are asking are questions for YOU, not questions for God.Unlike God, you have to answer for your actions to other people. Everyone is asking "How can you be so sure that God exists?" You are answering them with "We are all created by God". Obviously, that isn't the answer to the question at all. A better answer would sound like "I can't be sure that God exists, but my belief, which does help me through life requires me to believe that the existence of God is a definitive fact. I cannot explain this to you because it is a matter of subjective experience - whether or not God exists. It is a matter of subjective experience because if God exists, we are open to experience him in our lives, but we are also allowed to shun him out of our lives. Also, if God doesn't exist we are also allowed to experience him in our lives (although it would be a self-created illusion, but that doesn't change much because either way it would be a subjective experience), and we are allowed to shun him out of our lives if we don't believe in him. Overall, I cannot explain how God exists, or show you in an empirical fashion that he does exist. What I can do is show you that it is possible for God to exist in our lives if we allow him too. Religion is an issue of faith and personal experience, not of empirical facts and analysis through observation and deduction, therefore, I cannot answer your question, I can only show you that I believe him to exist, and many others do as well."Honestly, if you ask any intelligent Priest the question "How can you be so sure that God exists?" you'll get something like that.And for the people asking the question "How can you be so sure that God exists?" Please STOP. The question is unanswerable because faith is the key element in maintaining that belief, and faith is essentially a belief based on personal experience and nothing more. You'll never get an answer for that question, because it doesn't exist. If a religious person went up to you and asked "How can you put your faith in science?" you would answer with "Because science is right most of the time, and it helps people daily in their lives. Because science gives proof". However, that would also be the wrong answer, because the more you get into science, the more you realize that science itself is on a shaky foundation, and science is consistently proving itself wrong. Sure science understands biology, chemistry, basic physics, but honestly, it all rests on underlying beliefs that are nearly impossible to disprove or prove. For example: Cells are made of molecules, molecules are made of atoms, the existence of atoms - which relies on our belief on the structure of atoms - which relies on the belief of the existence of subatomic particles like protons, neutrons and electrons - which relies on our belief of even smaller particles like quarks, photons and dark matter - which in turn all comes down to Quantum Physics - a field where the observer directly affects every experiment therefore making it nearly impossible to discover anything, therefore, how can we be certain in the manner that cells operate in, after all, its all on shaky foundation that we end up putting our faith in. Don't get me wrong, science is easier to believe in because it is a self-correcting field - when it sees something that disproves what was previously demonstrated the entire system gets changed. One of the few key differences between religion and science is that religion doesn't do that.If you ask any educated scientists (one that isn't arrogant) you should get an answer like that. The fact is that we know VERY LITTLE about reality and its underlying principles that govern it. Hell, there's even beliefs out there founded on science that reality is nothing more than the reflection of consciousness.

I'm just trying to defend evolution. Can we all agree with evolution yet or what?Also, there's a difference between an untested hypothesis and a well-tested theory.

[Loismustdie 0]

There asking questions I have already answered, they just want me to play the game again. You want me to answer that I can't be sure that God exists? How..... weak. I won't be taking that stance anytime soon. The existence of God is evident everywhere, period, without a doubt. Name me one person who on there deathbed when they are not at peace with death calls out to nobody. :shock: They call out to God, or Jesus, or whatever- but they call out to something bigger then them for help because at the core of every human is a soul and that soul knows that it is not the be all an end all- there is a higher power. Who that higher power is is another argument. And Tim, no we are not clear that evolution is fact, no way. I will concede that evolution occurs, but as the starting point for the universe and humanity? No.

[crowTrobot 2]

If you ask any educated scientists (one that isn't arrogant) you should get an answer like that.

no you shouldn't. they would say science relys on physical evidence to form opinions and useful directions for further research, but does not involve "faith" in any sense that can be compared to the absolute belief of religeous faith.

For example: Cells are made of molecules, molecules are made of atoms, the existence of atoms - which relies on our belief on the structure of atoms - which relies on the belief of the existence of subatomic particles like protons, neutrons and electrons - which relies on our belief of even smaller particles like quarks, photons and dark matter - which in turn all comes down to Quantum Physics - a field where the observer directly affects every experiment therefore making it nearly impossible to discover anything, therefore, how can we be certain in the manner that cells operate in, after all, its all on shaky foundation that we end up putting our faith in.

bad example because science makes no pretenses about our understanding of things at levels underlying what we cannot directly observe, only potentially useful theories.also i get the impression from reading that the majority of QM scientists these days favor either "no collapse" or decoherence-based interpretations that lessen or eliminate the importance of the observer.

And for the people asking the question "How can you be so sure that God exists?" Please STOP.

no i won't. the whole "faith is an individual thing that can't be conveyed" is just a huge anti-intellectual cop out that human society must face and mature beyond at some point if it wants to survive long term.

[UglyJimStudly 0]

Last time I checked, I was not the only one in the world who believed in a higher power. It is actually quite prevelant.

This is true. All sorts of people believe in some kind of higher power. And your beliefs, as stated in this thread, disagree with most of them. Lots of people with different beliefs are at least as certain that their beliefs are correct as you are about yours. And yet, you can't all be right - if in fact any of you are.If you some day grasp that truth, you might actually come to understand why it is that your pronouncements ring so hollow.

[UglyJimStudly 0]

Sure science understands biology, chemistry, basic physics, but honestly, it all rests on underlying beliefs that are nearly impossible to disprove or prove.

Actually, it rests on beliefs that would be trivial to disprove if they were grossly false. That is what distinguishes science from religion (and most other types of human knowledge) - science invites attempts to disprove or debunk theories, since that leads to better understanding of the phenomena those theories describe. The question of "why?" - the very question that you and Loismustdie and others so hate to hear when applied to religion - is the driving force of science, and science as we know it could not exist without that doubt, that questioning.Which is not to say that scientists don't have sacred cows - just that comparing them to religious beliefs, which so far as you've shown only make sense in an atmosphere in which the basic question of "why?" is either outlawed or rendered meaningless, is to miss the point pretty much entirely.

[Hubris 0]

no you shouldn't. they would say science relys on physical evidence to form opinions and useful directions for further research, but does not involve "faith" in any sense that can be compared to the absolute belief of religeous faith.

Ah, I love dissecting.Anyways. Science is a faith, as is religion. Are their faiths similar? No. Are their approaches to their faith similar? No. They are both issues of faith though, because they rely on you following vague, and often inexplacable occurences (and often the explanations are simply educated guesses which could easily be proved wrong with the newest piece of evidence that could arise anyday). Science is a faith in where you follow the belief that the truth can be truly found, but only through intense observation and analysis of the environment around them (People put their faith in that belief because the world has shown them that that is true, but nothing outside their own experience can truly tell them that that is the proper way to approach reality). Religion is a faith where you follow the belief that truth can be found through personal experience where you get in touch with your spiritual side (People put their faith in that belief because the world has shown them that that is true, but nothing outside their own experience can truly tell them that that is the proper way to approach reality).See the underlying connection between the two? It's in the underlying pricinciples of both beliefs. The approaches that both take are completely different, but it takes the same amount of faith to pursue either. Do I think science is a better faith to pursue? Yes, I do, because it's a progressive and changing faith, something I think is more appropriate for human societies because human societies change (and that is a constant throughout all of human history).

bad example because science makes no pretenses about our understanding of things at levels underlying what we cannot directly observe, only potentially useful theories.also i get the impression from reading that the majority of QM scientists these days favor either "no collapse" or decoherence-based interpretations that lessen or eliminate the importance of the observer.

My main idea was that science makes one pretense - that the scientific approach is the right way to understanding how the universe works. Something that is essentially a guess made by humans. It's shown us alot of things - but if the proof that that approach is correct isn't supported by something other than just other people's experience, then what makes that belief have more ground than the religious belief? Essentially, all major religions have only that support too - other people's experiences as an indication that their approach is the right one.Also, I don't like to get into Quantum Physics that much, because there's so much of a debate even in the scientific community over that one field. I was just using it as an example because Quantum Physics generally just shows us how little we know, and how hard it is to discover the underlying principles that govern the behavior of the universe.

no i won't. the whole "faith is an individual thing that can't be conveyed" is just a huge anti-intellectual cop out that human society must face and mature beyond at some point if it wants to survive long term.

Faith is an indivual thing though - it doesn't make it correct, but that's what it is. You have to accept it because faith is completely a matter of personal experience. It's the most subjective experience out there because you don't share it with other people, you experience it entirely within yourself. Spirituality is a part of the human psyche whether you like it or not, aboloshing it entirely would be like telling people they could never think logically. It just won't happen.I think the most important thing to think of when comparing science and religion, is how did they both begin? They both began from human observation, a need to explain the workings of the universe, and the human psyche. Primitive people used God, Heaven, Hell and Earth as a means of understanding the universe. That was the medium people thought of to explain how things worked. People used their spiritual side to explain the environment because it makes them feel profoundly connected to your environment. Modern people now use their deductive side to understand the environment because it makes them feel in control of their environment. Now, both approaches are good and useful, because it's extremely important that people feel connected and feel in control of their environment. If you're disconnected but in control you perceive things poorly, you miss smaller details and you only see the big picture; if you're connected but not in control you perceive things poorly, you miss the big picture and only see the finer details.What's my point? Faith is connected to science and spirituality, and both science and spirituality are extremely important for maintaining, advancing and understanding ourselves better.

[Hubris 0]

Sure science understands biology, chemistry, basic physics, but honestly, it all rests on underlying beliefs that are nearly impossible to disprove or prove.

Actually, it rests on beliefs that would be trivial to disprove if they were grossly false. That is what distinguishes science from religion (and most other types of human knowledge) - science invites attempts to disprove or debunk theories, since that leads to better understanding of the phenomena those theories describe. The question of "why?" - the very question that you and Loismustdie and others so hate to hear when applied to religion - is the driving force of science, and science as we know it could not exist without that doubt, that questioning.Which is not to say that scientists don't have sacred cows - just that comparing them to religious beliefs, which so far as you've shown only make sense in an atmosphere in which the basic question of "why?" is either outlawed or rendered meaningless, is to miss the point pretty much entirely.

Okay, I don't hate the question 'why?', its actually my favorite question. The most important thing to understand in terms of spiritual faith, is that the question is completely moot. You cannot experience spirituality while questioning yourself that it even exists. Spirituality is a self-induced experience, whether it is a REAL experience or not. You cannot question your experiences while simultaneously trying to involve yourself in them. In other words, there are times to ask questions, and there are times you should just let it ride. When you want to involve yourself in spirituality, its a 'let it ride' scenario. All major religions create logical dilemnas that cannot be answered no matter what - and for a reason, because those religious beliefs have roots in spirituality, and being spiritual means accepting your experience, not questioning it.When you want to understand your surroundings for the purpose of manipulating them - ask questions, observe and theorise. That's what science is for. All information in science can eventually be utilized by MANY people, where as all information in religion can only be used by the person experiencing it (and don't tell me you don't get any information from spiritual experiences, because you do. If you think otherwise you obviously haven't had an intense spiritual experience). Both approaches result in you receiving information that influences the method in how you interact with your environment, they just give you different kinds of information.And sorry, I should clear up and say that I don't believe in dogmatic religion (like saying that God created the earth in seven days). I believe spirituality should play a role in everyone's lives, and that it is a component of the human psyche. I don't think religion should attempt to explain the origins of the universe because I think that that isn't an issue of spirituality. Spirituality is all about romantic quality - the experiences of the moment, the experiences of non-thinking and just being (If you've ever read about Phaedrus you should know what I'm talking about). Science is all about objective quality - the experiences of the past and the future, cause and effect and the results one gets from analysis, experimentation and deduction.

[Hubris 0]

There asking questions I have already answered, they just want me to play the game again. You want me to answer that I can't be sure that God exists? How..... weak. I won't be taking that stance anytime soon. The existence of God is evident everywhere, period, without a doubt. Name me one person who on there deathbed when they are not at peace with death calls out to nobody. :shock: They call out to God, or Jesus, or whatever- but they call out to something bigger then them for help because at the core of every human is a soul and that soul knows that it is not the be all an end all- there is a higher power. Who that higher power is is another argument. And Tim, no we are not clear that evolution is fact, no way. I will concede that evolution occurs, but as the starting point for the universe and humanity? No.

You cannot use the experiences of people to prove your own ideas about the universe. Even under religious beliefs people are fallible, and they make mistakes. Just because people call out on their deathbed for God does not make him exist. YOU make God exist, YOU experience the presence of God and only YOU. If you want to show other people that God (or at least spirituality) exists you get them to participate in activities that allow them to see that (prayer, meditation, etc.).The fact is, is that if you want to look at things scientifically, you cannot prove that God exists and you must concede that under scientific criteria he does not. So - under the criteria of anyone scientific, you are wrong. BUT, the existence of God through spiritual perception is not a matter of scientific criteria - and that's the way you're looking at it. You can't disprove what their saying because they're using an entirely different approach - if you want to prove them wrong you have to take their route, the scientific route. And if they want to prove you wrong, they have to do it through your route, not the scientific route. This argument is pretty much pointless because it's like comparing apples and oranges - you have to use to different forms of logic and observation to break down countering arguments. It's like using basic geometry to figure out a complex calculus problem, it just won't work.

[crowTrobot 2]

See the underlying connection between the two?

no, i see you describing a broad, all encompassing definition of faith that isn't of the type most in this thread are talking about.

[Loismustdie 0]

There asking questions I have already answered, they just want me to play the game again. You want me to answer that I can't be sure that God exists? How..... weak. I won't be taking that stance anytime soon. The existence of God is evident everywhere, period, without a doubt. Name me one person who on there deathbed when they are not at peace with death calls out to nobody. :shock: They call out to God, or Jesus, or whatever- but they call out to something bigger then them for help because at the core of every human is a soul and that soul knows that it is not the be all an end all- there is a higher power. Who that higher power is is another argument. And Tim, no we are not clear that evolution is fact, no way. I will concede that evolution occurs, but as the starting point for the universe and humanity? No.

You cannot use the experiences of people to prove your own ideas about the universe. Even under religious beliefs people are fallible, and they make mistakes. Just because people call out on their deathbed for God does not make him exist. YOU make God exist, YOU experience the presence of God and only YOU. If you want to show other people that God (or at least spirituality) exists you get them to participate in activities that allow them to see that (prayer, meditation, etc.).The fact is, is that if you want to look at things scientifically, you cannot prove that God exists and you must concede that under scientific criteria he does not. So - under the criteria of anyone scientific, you are wrong. BUT, the existence of God through spiritual perception is not a matter of scientific criteria - and that's the way you're looking at it. You can't disprove what their saying because they're using an entirely different approach - if you want to prove them wrong you have to take their route, the scientific route. And if they want to prove you wrong, they have to do it through your route, not the scientific route. This argument is pretty much pointless because it's like comparing apples and oranges - you have to use to different forms of logic and observation to break down countering arguments. It's like using basic geometry to figure out a complex calculus problem, it just won't work.

Your wrong. I'm right. Pbbbbbbb.

[Mattnxtc 0]

unfortunately lois is still wrong (i really wish he woudl learn). It does absolutely hurt God to know that there are people in this world that dont accept Him. While there is no physical evidence (duh) of him it is hard to deny that there is a creator... From a pure mathematical standpoint (this is a poker forum by the way) the universe being created at random is the equivelent of throwing a dart across teh entire universe and hitting a bulls eye. I dont like those odds do u? Heres the thing with Christianity...it hasnt been proved wrong. It has only been proved to be more right as the years go by. Im not here tryin to convert anybody b/c well thats not up to me. I know what i believe and thats enogh for me...but dont equate God to a unicorn

[crowTrobot 2]

unfortunately lois is still wrong (i really wish he woudl learn). It does absolutely hurt God to know that there are people in this world that dont accept Him. While there is no physical evidence (duh) of him it is hard to deny that there is a creator... From a pure mathematical standpoint (this is a poker forum by the way) the universe being created at random is the equivelent of throwing a dart across teh entire universe and hitting a bulls eye. I dont like those odds do u?

statistical arguments for a creator don't prove anything since we don't actually know how likely anything is to happen. who says the universe was created? if the universe is infinite in any sense and there is even the remote possibility of conditions forming that will allow intelligent life to evolve spontaniously, it will happen (and it will happen infinite times!) if that happens to be the case we only seem special (to ourselves) because of our extremely limited perspective.

Heres the thing with Christianity...it hasnt been proved wrong. It has only been proved to be more right as the years go by. Im not here tryin to convert anybody b/c well thats not up to me. I know what i believe and thats enogh for me...but dont equate God to a unicorn

not sure if you are saying physical evidence has been found supporting the validity of the bible as the word of god, or if you are otherwise saying christianity has been proven to be the "right" religeon among many in any sense. either way you're dead wrong.what evidence is there for god (whichever one you're talking about) that wouldn't also apply to a unicorn??

[UglyJimStudly 0]

Okay, I don't hate the question 'why?', its actually my favorite question. The most important thing to understand in terms of spiritual faith, is that the question is completely moot.

OK, I'm willing to accept that you truly believe both of these statements. And given that, your comparison of religious faith to science - which, you'll note, was the topic on which I was disagreeing with you - is completely invalid, because the question of "why?" is most certainly not moot in science. If you're now backpedaling to decouple the two, then we have no real disagreement.

[Hubris 0]

See the underlying connection between the two?

no, i see you describing a broad, all encompassing definition of faith that isn't of the type most in this thread are talking about.

faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)n. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. A set of principles or beliefs.Those highlighted areas are the issues of faith I'm talking about. Do you have complete certainty that science is the answer to all the questions in the universe? If so, how? Do you put your faith in it because of the results you've seen? Do those results truly indicate that it is the right way to find the truth about the universe? Do you have complete certainty in your belief? If your answer is yes, then you are putting faith into science (and the people who further science), because from a scientific point of view you can't put complete certainty into something, because the possibility of it being disproved by new findings can show you otherwise (You're also putting faith into the idea that humans can find infallible approaches to discovering new information - something that can't truly be proved. Hence you are putting FAITH into humanity's capabilities).

[Hubris 0]

Okay, I don't hate the question 'why?', its actually my favorite question. The most important thing to understand in terms of spiritual faith, is that the question is completely moot.

OK, I'm willing to accept that you truly believe both of these statements. And given that, your comparison of religious faith to science - which, you'll note, was the topic on which I was disagreeing with you - is completely invalid, because the question of "why?" is most certainly not moot in science. If you're now backpedaling to decouple the two, then we have no real disagreement.

My overall point is that you put faith in the question 'why?'. You don't know if asking that question is ultimately the right thing to do - or the correct thing, its just your natural instinct to ask the question. Your faith in the question 'why?', is the same as the faith someone puts into believing in God.

[Hubris 0]

Your wrong. I'm right. Pbbbbbbb.

*Covers ears with hands*LALALALALALALALALALALALALALAOkay, seriously though, I never said you were wrong. I'm saying that this debate is pointless because you can't analyze different criteria using a method that isn't applicable. You cannot... under any circumstance logically analyze science with religion, and vice versa. Peas and carrots, pease and carrots.

[crowTrobot 2]

Do you have complete certainty that science is the answer to all the questions in the universe?

no, and neither do most scientists. your whole point is moot.

[UglyJimStudly 0]

My overall point is that you put faith in the question 'why?'.

Ah, goalpost shifting. Yeah, that's another classic backpedal move, nice demonstration.

You don't know if asking that question is ultimately the right thing to do - or the correct thing, its just your natural instinct to ask the question.

Not instinct, but rather a matter of drawing on experience - asking "why?" has always taken me somewhere that I can evaluate objectively as useful, if rarely where I expected to go. From observation, I believe declaring the question "why?" to be moot is the far more instinctive option - most people are quite happy to avoid thinking about such things. I certainly didn't ask "why?" nearly as often when I was younger and thought I knew a whole lot more, but experience has taught me that the question is pretty useful.

Your faith in the question 'why?', is the same as the faith someone puts into believing in God.

No, it's not. Nobody, in this thread or elsewhere, has shown me that blind belief absent any discussion of "why?" leads to the same sort of results that I can evaluate objectively. Maybe you should try moving those goalposts some more.

[Hubris 0]

I am not backpeddling or goal-post shifting here buddy, I just usually have problems getting my ideas out - sorry if I came off the wrong way at the start. The idea that I've been trying to get through since I first posted in this thread is that faith is a personal issue, what you chose to put your faith into is a personal issue, and that believing in science means that you have faith in science - therefore making it a personal issue. It's been getting so muddled though because this has been going on for weeks, so sorry for any confusion.Anyways, your reply just proved the point I was trying to get across to everyone. Here's why.

Not instinct, but rather a matter of drawing on experience - asking "why?" has always taken me somewhere that I can evaluate objectively as useful, if rarely where I expected to go. From observation, I believe declaring the question "why?" to be moot is the far more instinctive option - most people are quite happy to avoid thinking about such things. I certainly didn't ask "why?" nearly as often when I was younger and thought I knew a whole lot more, but experience has taught me that the question is pretty useful.

So, in other words, you put your faith in the question 'why?' because experience has shown you that it's good to do that. Funny, religious people put their faith in religion because experience has also shown them that it's good to do that as well.

No, it's not. Nobody, in this thread or elsewhere, has shown me that blind belief absent any discussion of "why?" leads to the same sort of results that I can evaluate objectively. Maybe you should try moving those goalposts some more.

I wasn't talking about results - I'm talking about the philosophical foundations of science and religion. I said at the begginning of this thread that you obtain different results from religion than you do science, however, both give you results that are valuable for your daily life. Consistently asking the question 'why?' tears you out of reality and rips you out of the moment - you can't do something effectively while questioning everything around you (unless the activity you're doing is questioning everything around you). Being spiritual is a romantic quality - infatuating yourself with the moment (pretty much a necessary aspect to doing anything effectively), it's a state of mind that actually does help you through daily life. Both aspects -the inquisitive mind, and the romantic mind- are things that everyone should possess (sadly many people don't because so many intellectual people are overly obsessed with their intellect and not enough with their ability to just lie back and accept their surroundings - 'be in the moment' kind of thing).My point? Being overly spiritual is a bad thing, being overly intellectual is a bad thing. Having a bit of both? Great!

[timwakefield 68]

unfortunately lois is still wrong (i really wish he woudl learn). It does absolutely hurt God to know that there are people in this world that dont accept Him. While there is no physical evidence (duh) of him it is hard to deny that there is a creator... From a pure mathematical standpoint (this is a poker forum by the way) the universe being created at random is the equivelent of throwing a dart across teh entire universe and hitting a bulls eye. I dont like those odds do u?

statistical arguments for a creator don't prove anything since we don't actually know how likely anything is to happen. who says the universe was created? if the universe is infinite in any sense and there is even the remote possibility of conditions forming that will allow intelligent life to evolve spontaniously, it will happen (and it will happen infinite times!) if that happens to be the case we only seem special (to ourselves) because of our extremely limited perspective.

This is a very interesting argument, and I'm with you Crow. First, we have to agree that the universe had a beginning. I think we all agree on that. Most scientists believe that it began with the big bang, and in 1951 the Catholic church officially pronounced the big bang theory to be in accordance with the bible. So let's look at the big bang from a physical perspective. All of the matter in the universe was condensed into a tiny tiny point, representing all space. There would be no way of measuring time or distance before the big bang. This means there is no way of knowing if other universes may have existed before our own.So, from a physical standpoint, you can't say how "likely" it is that a universe similar to our own would form from a big bang. It is infinitely likely because as far as we can tell, our universe encompasses the entirety of everything. THE BIG BANG MUST FORM OUR UNIVERSE BECAUSE WE EXIST AND WE OBSERVE THAT IT FORMED US. Arguing the statistical likelyhood that the big bang does NOT form our universe would need for us to be able to see many other possible forms of creation, and we cannot.

[timwakefield 68]

One thing we COULD argue the statistical likelyhood of is whether life exists on other planets. The size of our observable universe is staggering...incomprehensible really."We now know that our galaxy is only one of some hundred thousand million that can be seen using modern telescopes, each galaxy itself containing some hundred thousand million stars. We live in a galaxy that is about one hundred thousand light-years across and is slowly rotating; the stars in its spiral arms orbit around its center about once every several hundred million years. Our sun is just an ordinary, average-sized, yellow star, near the inner edge of one of the spiral arms. We have certainly come a long way since Aristotle and Prolemy, when we thought that the earth was the center of the universe!"

[UglyJimStudly 0]

So, in other words, you put your faith in the question 'why?' because experience has shown you that it's good to do that. Funny, religious people put their faith in religion because experience has also shown them that it's good to do that as well.

With the important difference that I'm trusting that experience in an objectively provable situation - if I, for example, "put my faith" in a scientific description of gravity or the atom, it rests on observational results that anybody can repeat for confirmation, if they're so inclined and willing to put in the effort. That is definitively not true for matters of personal faith - in fact, your argument is that personal faith is completely the opposite.

I wasn't talking about results

I was, and said so explicitly, so your efforts to counter what I said are obviously doomed to failure. If you some day learn to read and quote in context, you might have more luck constructing a coherent argument. Good luck in your efforts.

[Hubris 0]

With the important difference that I'm trusting that experience in an objectively provable situation - if I, for example, "put my faith" in a scientific description of gravity or the atom, it rests on observational results that anybody can repeat for confirmation, if they're so inclined and willing to put in the effort. That is definitively not true for matters of personal faith - in fact, your argument is that personal faith is completely the opposite.

You keep proving my point for me..."It rests on observational results that anybody can repeat for confirmation, if they're so inclined and willing to put in the effort"That is an EXACT description of spirituality. Spirituality is an observable phenomenon - not in the sense that you can SEE it, but you can EXPERIENCE it. It is a phenomenon in which MANY people can experience similar feelings if they so choose. People who have spiritual awakenings come to a consensus about life - that's why all major religions have the same foundation (forgiveness, peace, love, prayer/meditation, etc). Science is the same - it makes people come to a consensus about certain aspects of reality. Spirituality, like science, rests on people who must willingly -and openly- put in the effort to experience it, and once they experience they come to a consensus on it. Remember, dogmatic beliefs are NOT an aspect of spirituality. I am not defending dogmatic religious beliefs, I think those are the problem (which is why I dissaprove of LoisMustDie's beliefs).My argument is that science and faith are inherently the same, and both require faith, dedication and openness in order for a person to involve themselves in it, and to understand it. Their results differ, and the way you experience both of them are completely different - Spirituality requires a person to have the ability to involve themselves in the moment, science requires a person to have the ability to detach themsevles from the moment. But, they both require FAITH and EXPERIENCE as pre-requisites to participating in them. The most important thing to realize is that science and spirituality are both man-made concepts - each representing a neccessary aspect of the human psyche. Both spirituality and science improve your understanding of yourself and your environment - they just do it on two completely different levels. The main thing is that I am not attacking your perspective on science - I think science is neccessary too, I think asking questions is very useful and experience has shown me that. What I am questioning is your perspective on spirituality - and I'm confronting the general attitude that many people have: that spirituality is useless, uneccessary, out-of-date and primitive. That may be applicable to certain aspects of religion - but not spirituality.Spirituality and science are not opposing forces. I involve myself in these debates because it's always the same thing - some people are super spiritual and they attack science, and some people are super scientific and they attack spirituality. I feel that its neccessary to try and get the idea through that spirituality and science are co-existing concepts. So many spiritual people denouce science, and so many scientific people denouce spirituality - but it is possible to be on both sides. Many scientists are spiritual people, and many spiritual people are scientific in nature. The only people who haven't realized that both sides are useful are the people who haven't allowed themselves to experience both sides, and I can't really blame people for that - religion has given spirituality a bad name, and many people grow up having never had a spiritual experience, also religion corrupts many people's outlooks on science, so you end up getting all this argument. Whoever thought a mutual lack of experience on both sides is the only thing keeping futile arguments like this one going?- On a side not from the argument -Do you have to be so rude when you get in an argument? Just because it's the internet and you don't have to look me in the eye doesn't mean you have to go ahead and belittle me just because we happen to not see eye to eye. I hope you don't show the same tact to people in day-to-day life. This is a debate - its no time for personal attacks. The first rule of philosophy: Confront the idea, not the person.

[Loismustdie 0]

unfortunately lois is still wrong (i really wish he woudl learn). It does absolutely hurt God to know that there are people in this world that dont accept Him. While there is no physical evidence (duh) of him it is hard to deny that there is a creator... From a pure mathematical standpoint (this is a poker forum by the way) the universe being created at random is the equivelent of throwing a dart across teh entire universe and hitting a bulls eye. I dont like those odds do u? Heres the thing with Christianity...it hasnt been proved wrong. It has only been proved to be more right as the years go by. Im not here tryin to convert anybody b/c well thats not up to me. I know what i believe and thats enogh for me...but dont equate God to a unicorn

I see where you are coming from, but the truth is it does not matter to God one way or the other what you decide to do- If it hurt God to know that there are people in this world that don't believe in him, why create Hell? They have there choice, they have there life, the consequences are there own to deal with. To God, it's one push of a button, to put it simply. Don't mistake God to be the sappy loving God that religion paints him to be these days, he is not. I mean, have you read the Bible? There is alot more punishment then there is reward, and for good reason. The numbers in favor of evil these days is so much greater, so Hells gates are BUSY. God said it would be that way, so it should not suprise you.

[spm 1]

unfortunately lois is still wrong (i really wish he woudl learn). It does absolutely hurt God to know that there are people in this world that dont accept Him. While there is no physical evidence (duh) of him it is hard to deny that there is a creator... From a pure mathematical standpoint (this is a poker forum by the way) the universe being created at random is the equivelent of throwing a dart across teh entire universe and hitting a bulls eye. I dont like those odds do u? Heres the thing with Christianity...it hasnt been proved wrong. It has only been proved to be more right as the years go by. Im not here tryin to convert anybody b/c well thats not up to me. I know what i believe and thats enogh for me...but dont equate God to a unicorn

I see where you are coming from, but the truth is it does not matter to God one way or the other what you decide to do- If it hurt God to know that there are people in this world that don't believe in him, why create Hell? They have there choice, they have there life, the consequences are there own to deal with. To God, it's one push of a button, to put it simply. Don't mistake God to be the sappy loving God that religion paints him to be these days, he is not. I mean, have you read the Bible? There is alot more punishment then there is reward, and for good reason. The numbers in favor of evil these days is so much greater, so Hells gates are BUSY. God said it would be that way, so it should not suprise you.

You really do assume an awful lot.