God does not exist

The scientific community does agree with me. You cannot compare science with religion. Science actually attempts to prove something rather than state it exists without any proof to back it up. Religion needs no proof, because it believes without proof. Religion relies upon faith whereas science relies upon proven facts.

 

I think that in general the scientific community does not believe in god, so yes, on that you may be right, but on the matter of the default assumption that you asserted before, I seriously doubt that the general scientific community would be behind you. This is a matter of accuracy within the scientific method, aside from any particular application. If you assume something is false until it is proven true you make a grave mistake within your application of the scientific method. That's why we have the conventional method in the first place, to keep people from making assumptions.

 

As many gods and goddesses as there have been created by man's need for them, it is understandably acceptable that anyone who is weak in certain areas would need something irrational to feel better. In children it is understood as a process of growing up. In adulthood, it is considered insane. If an adult needs to feel that he can only be loved or accepted by something that does not exist, then he has serious issues that cannot be solved through rationality. A rational mind accepts the truth, whereas the irrational mind will continue to create reasons why it must accept the irrational for its own sake.

 

Not all gods and goddesses are there to make you feel loved or accepted.

That is ignorant.

 

And just because we have projected human characteristics on pretty much all our gods which makes it easy in this day and age to dismiss the existence of any does not mean there isn't a god at all. Perhaps there are many gods I personally doubt that but we don't know. Dismissing the possibility is just as rigid as in accepting anthing that is considered 'holy'.

 

Agreed. I deal with my problems using my own intuition and intelligence, but I also deal with them by means of prayer, meditation, study, and ritual. These are things that get me closer to the Deities, who I work with in my everyday life, changing my life and other's in positive ways. I don't bow down asking for forgiveness, love, or salvation in order to feel sane. They don't demand me to sacrifice who I am because in some book it says it's "sinful". I be myself, simple as that.
I also write when things get tough. I talk with people I love. I do all kinds of things.

so yeah i agree with the post i quoted.

i also agree that no one knows everything, this life is a mystery where we learn something new every day.

 

Considering this statement applied to general circumstances in reality I disagree.

At some point one has to conclude that Santa Claus is not flying around on a sleigh with reindeer dropping down the chimney delivering presents in the middle of the night and there isn't a tooth fairy who leaves money under your pillow when you loose a tooth. To come to these realizations usually takes a good amount of flexibility in critical thinking as often these myths are instilled into children by parents and society.

Religious stories and belief are instilled in a similar manner, and generally speaking I see a good amount of critical thought for those who dismiss it.

Also due to not being bound by a particular religion, I have been able to sample a few different ones which I think has gave me a more comprehensive view of the institution of religion itself.

 

long thread..please excuse my post....not meant to be bombastic...i feel religion is a construct of the human interlect so is largly irrelivent and often destructive.
i find that direct experience the only way to get to know god.
god (this is only my personal thoughts) is actually the universe.
one can experience the universe quiet easily and without financial cost by simply practicing meditation on a regular basis.
how do we do this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNy-SWJ4G-U"]Vedic Meditation Teacher Thom Knoles - How Meditation Works - YouTube
yes...experience god today.
cheers ink8290....opps running for cover sorry bout that.

 

Lot's to cover in this so I'll try to make it brief.

The default stance of science is that of Theory and Truth. A Theory is an idea or hypothesis that you have of how something works... a Truth is a theory you can design an experiment around and when doing that experiment hundreds, thousands, or millions of times, you get the same results every time.

No where in there is the idea (as said eatlysergicacid said) is there any idea of it not being able to exist just because you can not test it. Science is also not based on "proof" but evidence.

In this light we can see that even something as "scientific" as evolution can not be proven. We can observe and create experiments that cause changes in features of animals, but we can not change one animal into another animal (micro and marco evolution). We have evidence that in the past some animal may have changed into another, but we can not observe it or design an experiment that seems to create it, so it is not a scientific proof. It is still a theory.

In that light both religion and evolution take a certain amount of faith to believe in. According to your logic, since it can not be proven than evolution does not exist.

On the issue of scientists, there are a lot of scientist who do believe in different religions. There are museums dedicated to creationism, and many researchers that run experiments that often refute the main stream beliefs of science. There are also many doctors (who know a lot about the science of the human body) that have strong faith in religion.

Just because you can not prove it does not mean it does not exist.

 

Yeah, as if FAITH in machines is better than actual SAFETY INSPECTIONS! Huge risk of death, destruction and waste of life = Belief without proof...

 

Why would you do that? Is life that simple?

 

god....i can only talk for me...obviously. its such a big topic however
god to me is all that is was and is to come....that is…. its beyond my understanding’s acknowledge there is a power greater than myself. Hence we have the great divide between east and west. The east places the godhead ,the personality of god as a product of the absolute and the west places the absolute as a product of the personality of god.
I think we usually go on models generated by the intellect to express such abstract notions of god….the intellect is lacking..and English is not such a good language in the description of Consciousness. Sanskrit is better as it is geared more to describe Consciousness …English is more emotive and technical.
But god..yeah…I love god. Always have…I have few thoughts about god.i prey and practice Meditation. It’s the best I can do.
im not that bright actually.yeah..im just like my mom..lol

 

God is all around us, you can see it in creation..look, the very best foods for your body are from God..evidence enough of his proof of his existence.

 

Nice try, but ordinarily the burden of proof rests on the person doing the asserting, which you just did.

I agree with the poster who said agnosticism is the default position. In accounting for the integrated complexity of the universe, "fine tuning", and such phenomena as life, consciousness and the synchronicity of experience, atheist have a lot of 'splainin' to do. So far, the best explanation they've come up with is the multiverse, which has no evidence to support it and no means of obtaining any. Bruce Mazet, in Skeptic magazine of, of all places,comments: "If it is acceptable to postulate the existence of hypothetical universes, then it is acceptable to postulate the existence of God." .

What do you mean by "proof"? I use it as enough evidence to persuade a reasonable person to accept a position or take a course of action. But there are a variety of levels of "proof" that we encounter in everyday life. There is scientific proof, the gold standard, which is based on rigorous, replicable testing of empirically refutable hypotheses, publication in peer refereed journals, and acceptance by consensus of the discipline. But not every question is likely to lend itself to the testing methods of science; and even the propositions that do are subject to Type 2 error: rejecting hypotheses that might be true. Besides, even science rests on a heap of assumptions that could be described as "faith". There is also courtroom proof: beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, preponderance of the evidence in civil cases, or clear and convincing evidence in special cases. But in making everyday decisions, administrators use the rough and ready standard of "substantial evidence": enough to convince a reasonable person, even though their might be enough evidence to convince another reasonable person of the opposite conclusion. So it could be a "win-win" situation for both of us. Since life is short and I can't afford a lawyer to take the important decisions in my life to court, I try to use the substantial evidence test--coupled with faith, which I define in Luther's terms as a "joyful bet." So my belief in God is a bet based on substantial evidence until better evidence becomes available. But faith must be consistent with reason and evidence. Which is why I reject fundamentalism in all its forms. God, to me, is not the Dude in the Sky. God is a working hypothesis: a felt presence of a Higher Power that is the ground of being and the sum of human idealism. The test is that it works for me. If atheism works for you, go for it!

 

But that seems to be exactly what you are doing.

Since the beginning of man, there have been those trying to prove and disprove the existance of God. It hasn't gone either way yet and I highly doubt it ever will.

I assume you believe in the Big Bang Theory. Can you show me undisputable solid evidence that it happened. No? Well then by your logic it is impossible that it ever happened, and is a man made event conjured up to make Athiests feel better about their decisions in life.

 

The same can be said of good. If you believe in good as you obviously do, then you find yourself in a competition for ascendancy of belief, all the while life goes on. Beliefs don't argue with the truth, only other beliefs.

Your genius is worth only a moments consideration before I would ask, what are you going to do about it?

 

Nature is all around us. The best foods for your body are from nature....no evidence of anything at all other than that.
If you want to read more into it than that, well fill yer boots.
Its not like you are presenting conclusive proof of anything.

 

The content of both your statements is the same although the form is different.
The word nature is a symbol for cause, just as the word god is a symbol for cause.
Where do the best foods for the mind come from?

 

To many, Nature is proof of God.

In this case, proof is subjective.