Questions for Atheists

[Raithere]

Jesus didn’t have faith, he had knowledge.

That's what they say. Believing it requires faith because there is no evidence.

Faith is only needed when you do not have knowledge of something, but wish to learn from someone who has.

Wow, does that open up a can of worms. What if the person you have put your faith in is full of BS?

Faith is invested in the scientific method, performed by scientists, to move to the next level of information.

The success of the scientific method is extraordinarily well founded. In fact, I cannot think of any other human endeavor that even comes close to being as successful. As such, faith is something of a misnomer.

At some point you or any scientist “didn’t know”, meaning you were taught.

Indeed, and we were taught primarily by example. First we'd have the lecture and then the lab where we would duplicate the experiments ourselves. No faith required.

So the faith is not in the scientific method as seen on paper, but in the scientists who work according to the method.

Why do I have to keep repeating myself? While many people do have faith in scientists none is actually required. In fact, it runs contrary to the scientific method to have faith in the scientists themselves. Do you understand what I mean by this? I mean that at no point are you required to accept anyone's word about science. In fact you don't have to accept anything. If you believe differently you can test things for yourself and if you can find the evidence to prove you're right then that evidence must be accepted, even if it overturns everything that was previously believed. This has happened repeatedly throughout the history of science.

Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other.

Apples and oranges.

~Raithere

 

[Jan Ardena]

Raithere,

That's what they say. Believing it requires faith because there is no evidence.

Wrong thread. You need to find a "does Jesus exist" thread, or start your own.

Wow, does that open up a can of worms. What if the person you have put your faith in is full of BS?

I have faith that you can work that out for yourself.

As such, faith is something of a misnomer.

It would seem you haven't understood the point.

Indeed, and we were taught primarily by example.

How did you know that it was the right example?

First we'd have the lecture and then the lab where we would duplicate the experiments ourselves. No faith required.

Do/did they have labs in your school, in which an experiment could decide that this universe was not intelligently designed?

Why do I have to keep repeating myself?

Because you only have one point?
One size fits all so to speak.

While many people do have faith in scientists none is actually required.

People have faith, so they must see it as a requirement.

In fact, it runs contrary to the scientific method to have faith in the scientists themselves.

How can it run contrary? It has nothing to do with science, it is a people thing. If it is required, then it automatically comes into play. When you get into an aeroplane, the experience and qualification of the pilots mean you don't have to worry. But people still do and sometimes their fears are realised.

Do you understand what I mean by this? I mean that at no point are you required to accept anyone's word about science.

That may be the unspoken rule, but people still do. These forums are littered with people who clearly demonstrate faith in scientists, but would not admit to it.

If you believe differently you can test things for yourself and if you can find the evidence to prove you're right then that evidence must be accepted, even if it overturns everything that was previously believed.

So why would you believe differently if the current test was proven? In fact why would you have "belief?"

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Katazia,

Faith can mean that, but trust is usually earned

Interesting.
What are the qualifications needed to gain your trust?

normally you would have REASON to trust someone or something. Faith has no such implication.

Sooooo you're saying once trust is established, it will always be.

If God were to influence you being faithful then that really devalues your own efforts if any.

That’s like saying, if your child influences you in being loving and kind, then that devalues your own efforts.
I think you need to have some understanding of what is meant by “God”, otherwise your reasoning will always sound flat.

Your continued assertion here reinforces the idea that we must just be mindless puppets.

“…God is trust”

Why?

Of course since it assumes God exists – we on the hand have no rational base to believe he exists and any who claim faith in God do so completely blindly.

Tell me of the experiences you have had, why you make such a bold statement.

The overwhelming essence of science is evidence and logical proof – and nowhere in science is faith needed or desired.

Scientists cannot claim that God does not exist, at best they can say we have no evidence that such an entity exists. I think the reason they can only arrive at this point is because of the method used. So when you say “there is no evidence to prove God exists”, you say this because you are locked into one method of acquiring knowledge, you are just a parrot with a preference, in other words. And it is from this platform you speak. Not that you have any knowledge.
When we believe something without any physical evidence, then we must have faith in the person and method.

Most worthwhile human endeavors are founded on hard work, training, education, and solid evidence for going forward.

Not necessarily.
Motzart being a prime example.

Any belief that a god exists or that a god will help in any way is founded entirely on pure blind faith –

Pure nonsense.
Again, please demonstrate your experience or understanding of God that allows you to make such sweeping generalisations?

Jan Ardena.

 

[okinrus]

Quote:
No, but I don't have true faith to move a mountain, nor does God tell me to.
Why the quote then?

You believe that faith is irrational belief. That is false, and Christians don't believe this. Rather, faith is the evidence of unseen things, as spoken of by Hebrews. Because I cannot move a mountain, and because God does not want me to move a mountain, I won't move a mountain proving therefore that faith is with God.

It is if you have no evidence.

It is evident that if God exists then you can only see him through his creation. That is, unless if you perceive him spiritually, you will not see him. So any evidence found in the world is a creation by Him; even our sight of Him could only be revealed by Himself.

Faith based belief is irrational. Faith is the certain belief that something is true despite the lack of evidence. Uncertainty is an expression that one doesn’t know whether something is true or not, and could also be called healthy skepticism.

It suffices to say that by assuming that all faith is irrational, and that Christianity is based up on faith, then Christianity is irrational. However, you begin by a false premise that you have not proven: that faith is irrational. Since Christianity says that faith is rational, produced by God and accepted by us for our salvation, either you assume that faith is rational and disprove Christianity or you prove that faith is irrational. You will, nonetheless, have a difficult time proving that all faith is irrational because each person has their different reasons to believe. While God instills His faith in us and we accept by our trust His faith, each believer will see God differently in their life.

Why? I have no reason to trust anyone until I have evidence they can be trusted. I have no reason to believe I can achieve something until I attempt it and build some evidence for myself of my capabilities. I do not see any case in the life of a truly rational person that anything need be based on faith.

Well, I don't think that you've truly called on God in a time of need, or even asked for Him to show you His existence. If mankind desires sureness, then it can be only found in God because none else knows the universe. But science will never never reveal truth on this matter because it is completely in the realm of our own knowledge. At best you could say that God is unlikely.

Now since you bring up success in the work place, what sort of foundation must someone who desires virtues have?
Sorry – I don’t understand the question.

What sort of foundation would one want to have to be truly happy, having the virtues love, hope, and honesty? I would hope that if nothing else you desire, above all else, these virtues. Yet I'm interested in what foundation you have without God?

Newton very rationally developed his scientific findings but he also quite irrationally believed in the existence of God.

I don't see your point here. Newton used logical arguments, produced a model, and could verify the model by experiments. His model of gravity was just as surefooted as any belief in the non-existence of God today. Nevertheless, he was wrong, and his theory was replaced. Likewise, you seem to have plenty of evidence of the non-existence of God (I deny this of course), have a model of a world without God, and disparage the lack of logic in believers. Yet why should I think that you are any more accurate than Newton?

 

[Katazia]

Jan Ardena,

What are the qualifications needed to gain your trust?

Evidence of trustworthiness.

Sooooo you're saying once trust is established, it will always be.

No I didn’t say that.

That’s like saying, if your child influences you in being loving and kind, then that devalues your own efforts.

Out of context – the issue was about humans being incapable without God’s help.

I think you need to have some understanding of what is meant by “God”, otherwise your reasoning will always sound flat.

My understanding of what is meant by God is fine. But apparently it is not the same as yours. What do you mean by God?

“…God is trust”

Why?

?

Tell me of the experiences you have had, why you make such a bold statement.

There is no evidence of God. Please show some if you think otherwise.

Scientists cannot claim that God does not exist, at best they can say we have no evidence that such an entity exists.

OK.

I think the reason they can only arrive at this point is because of the method used.

OK.

So when you say “there is no evidence to prove God exists”, you say this because you are locked into one method of acquiring knowledge,

Locked? Show a better method if you can and I’ll use that. I have no loyalty to any particular method.

you are just a parrot with a preference, in other words.

You appear judgmental as if I am wrong yet you offer nothing better.

And it is from this platform you speak.

I’ll use the best method possible. Again show something better if you can.

Not that you have any knowledge.

Knowledge of what?

When we believe something without any physical evidence, then we must have faith in the person and method.

No we don’t – we can simply withhold belief.

Not necessarily.
Motzart being a prime example.

Note that I said MOST.

Pure nonsense.
Again, please demonstrate your experience or understanding of God that allows you to make such sweeping generalisations?

If there is no evidence for God then any belief that he does exist is blind faith. There can be nothing controversial about this. My background, experience or understanding is irrelevant as far as the truth of this statement is concerned.

Kat

 

[Katazia]

Okinrus,

You believe that faith is irrational belief. That is false, and Christians don't believe this.

If you believe something without evidence then such belief if irrational. It is simply a matter of definitions. And Christians are hardly likely to broadcast their irrationality are they, so their beliefs cannot count for very much in this matter.

Irrational means ‘not logical’, logical premises depend on evidence, Christian beliefs are not based on evidence, Christian beliefs therefore cannot be logical, Christian beliefs are therefore irrational.

Rather, faith is the evidence of unseen things, as spoken of by Hebrews.

Looked at more closely all that this means is that evidence of unseen things is the same as no evidence at all. This confirms my assertion that faith is belief without evidence, i.e. faith is irrational belief. This of course doesn’t mean that if there is no evidence then the object does not exist but simply that you cannot claim any evidence that it does exist.

Because I cannot move a mountain, and because God does not want me to move a mountain, I won't move a mountain proving therefore that faith is with God.

All these statements cancel each out with the result that you have said nothing at all.

It is evident that if God exists then you can only see him through his creation.

What creation is that? Everything I see around me was the result of evolution.

That is, unless if you perceive him spiritually, you will not see him.

That doesn’t help since you are now referring to an ability that also requires blind faith that it exists. This is a circular argument – e.g. faith proves that faith exists.

So any evidence found in the world is a creation by Him; even our sight of Him could only be revealed by Himself.

Or everything we see evolved and he doesn’t exist. Your explanation is very convoluted.

It suffices to say that by assuming that all faith is irrational, and that Christianity is based up on faith, then Christianity is irrational.

yes exactly, well done.

However, you begin by a false premise that you have not proven: that faith is irrational.

See my opening statements for the required proof.

Since Christianity says that faith is rational, produced by God and accepted by us for our salvation, either you assume that faith is rational and disprove Christianity or you prove that faith is irrational.

Done so in my opening statements.

You will, nonetheless, have a difficult time proving that all faith is irrational because each person has their different reasons to believe.

Any belief not based on evidence is irrational, there are no exceptions. Faith in this context specifically means belief without evidence. If Christians actually had ANY evidence then they would NEVER need to call upon faith.

While God instills His faith in us and we accept by our trust His faith, each believer will see God differently in their life.

Or - everyone has an active imagination and with no common factual basis for God then everyone is free to imagine him however they wish.

Well, I don't think that you've truly called on God in a time of need, or even asked for Him to show you His existence.

Of course not – why try to contact something imaginary?

If mankind desires sureness, then it can be only found in God because none else knows the universe.

Nonsense – given enough time and a fortuitous evolutionary future we can probably discover everything for ourselves. Do you realize you have dropped into a preaching mode - definitely not appreciated.

But science will never never reveal truth on this matter because it is completely in the realm of our own knowledge.

”Never” is a claim best only made by those that can see the future – are you clairvoyant?

At best you could say that God is unlikely.

OK, and unnecessary of course.

What sort of foundation would one want to have to be truly happy, having the virtues love, hope, and honesty? I would hope that if nothing else you desire, above all else, these virtues.

I’m not sure that I do place these items as high priority. I seek to learn, to discover, and to experience. Dishonesty, depression, and hate are also all human attributes that form reality as well as the values you state, but there are many more. I guess I strive to be essentially indifferent to all these attributes and to realize true self-knowledge.

Yet I'm interested in what foundation you have without God?

Realize first that the ideas of gods have been with man from ancient times and there have been thousands of definitions of gods and many still persist in the world. The god idea is a transitory peculiarity born of emotions, irrational hopes, and considerable ignorance. Man is but a minute speck in the vast ocean of infinite time and it is quite absurd that some super being that created everything would isolate man as something special – this is the arrogance of man who can see little other than his own short sighted and condescending pettiness. His foolish squabbles, wars, jealousies, hopes and loves, are all pointless trivia that will eventually disappear in the mists of time. My aim is to achieve a permanent perspective of these things and to stay above the pettiness. In the short term I hope that I will not die since I see distinct hints from science that long life may be truly possible soon. But to experience more of the vast ocean of time and experiences that are before us is something that I am sure I will enjoy.

I don't see your point here. Newton used logical arguments, produced a model, and could verify the model by experiments.

OK.

His model of gravity was just as surefooted as any belief in the non-existence of God today.

Clearly you are confused – gravity is demonstrable – the non-existence of God is not.

Nevertheless, he was wrong, and his theory was replaced.

Ahh, you do not understand science that you so readily criticize. Newton was not wrong and his theories were not replaced, but they were updated and enhanced as new knowledge became available.

Likewise, you seem to have plenty of evidence of the non-existence of God

I do? Please tell me, I’d love to know.

(I deny this of course)

You deny what? The evidence that I haven’t presented or claimed?

, have a model of a world without God,

But it is more than a model – just look around you – it is reality – there is no sign of gods anywhere.

and disparage the lack of logic in believers.

That is of course your perception – all I have done is highlighted the objective facts of irrational faith and religious beliefs.

Yet why should I think that you are any more accurate than Newton?

For that, my friend, I recommend you read a book on logic and critical thinking.

Kat

 

[Raithere]

I have faith that you can work that out for yourself.

I don't need to. I wait until after I hear what someone has to say to determine how much faith to have in them.

It would seem you haven't understood the point.

Jan, the more we discuss the more I realize that we have almost no common ground upon which to communicate.

How did you know that it was the right example?

It's self evident. If you want to know if objects of different mass fall at the same or differing rates you drop two objects of different mass from the same height and observe.

Do/did they have labs in your school, in which an experiment could decide that this universe was not intelligently designed?

As of yet, no one has come up with a way to test this, which is why ID is not scientifically valid, it relies upon an argument from ignorance.

Because you only have one point?

Even if this were true it would not explain why you are unable to understand what that point is.

People have faith, so they must see it as a requirement.

Irrelevant; faith is not required for science. That's the great thing about science; even if you completely disbelieve in it, it still works. No matter what you may believe; if you drop two objects of different masses they fall at the same rate (excepting for wind resistance, of course).

How can it run contrary? It has nothing to do with science, it is a people thing. If it is required, then it automatically comes into play.

Okay, let's try this another way. What is the relevance of faith in science in your opinion?

So why would you believe differently if the current test was proven? In fact why would you have "belief?"

Because proof is not an all or nothing proposition, belief based upon evidence relies upon a preponderance of evidence and an absence of conflicting evidence. When new evidence is acquired it sometimes shifts the balance of evidence requiring a parallel shift in belief.

~Raithere

 

[Godless]

It is beyond me, how any one can say science is purely faith!. When they get in to their car and ingnite the engine, move at exceeding speeds, and are able to stop at a stop sign. Thus the conductor does not understand if it were not for scientific principles that the car would not exist at all?.

Godless.

 

[okinrus]

Ahh, you do not understand science that you so readily criticize. Newton was not wrong and his theories were not replaced, but they were updated and enhanced as new knowledge became available.

I don't see how I'm criticizing science by pointing out that theories are often times disproven. Newton was wrong because his model of gravity was not perfectly accurate; his model, while practical, was wrong.

<i><b>
That doesn’t help since you are now referring to an ability that also requires blind faith that it exists. This is a circular argument – e.g. faith proves that faith exists. </b></i>
Spiritual insight does not require blind faith, nor even belief in the existence of God.

Likewise, you seem to have plenty of evidence of the non-existence of God
I do? Please tell me, I’d love to know.

If you did not have evidence of the non-existence of God, it would be irrational faith to believe that God is non-existent. Now you've mentioned evolution as some sort of evidence, but it's not. If God was outside of time, the amount of time that evolution took would be insignificant.

”Never” is a claim best only made by those that can see the future – are you clairvoyant?

No, it impossible for science to prove the non-existence of God because of His omnipotence. God could, indeed, divorce himeself from his creation so that none of his creation could ever see or detect him.

Looked at more closely all that this means is that evidence of unseen things is the same as no evidence at all. This confirms my assertion that faith is belief without evidence, i.e. faith is irrational belief. This of course doesn’t mean that if there is no evidence then the object does not exist but simply that you cannot claim any evidence that it does exist.

No, the author states evidence, which could come from practically anywhere. No one has seen an atom through their own eyes, so your denying much of what we know about the world.

Nonsense – given enough time and a fortuitous evolutionary future we can probably discover everything for ourselves. Do you realize you have dropped into a preaching mode - definitely not appreciated.

No, I'm not preaching to anyone. But that is impossible because all methods that we have for discovering something necessarily change what we are discovering.

Man is but a minute speck in the vast ocean of infinite time and it is quite absurd that some super being that created everything would isolate man as something special – this is the arrogance of man who can see little other than his own short sighted and condescending pettiness.

Believing in the existence of God does not imply that man is special.

I’m not sure that I do place these items as high priority. I seek to learn, to discover, and to experience. Dishonesty, depression, and hate are also all human attributes that form reality as well as the values you state, but there are many more. I guess I strive to be essentially indifferent to all these attributes and to realize true self-knowledge.

What is true self-knowledge?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Katazia,

Evidence of trustworthiness.

Hmmm!!! Very interesting.
So how does one acquire evidence of trust-worthiness?

No I didn’t say that.

Okay, before I proceed further, I need to know what you regard as EVIDENCE, of trustworthiness.

Out of context – the issue was about humans being incapable without God’s help.

No, the issue was about human effort being devalued because of what is seen as an outside influence. The particular influence was God.

My understanding of what is meant by God is fine.

What do you mean by fine? How does that explain anything?

But apparently it is not the same as yours. What do you mean by God?

Could this be the old switcher-roo gag? Can’t answer the question so you answer it by asking the same question!

“?”

Why are we mindless puppets when we say God is trust?

There is no evidence of God.

So you have seen all evidences?
If no, then why do you assert that people who have faith in the existence of God, are completely blind?
Could it be that it is you who are blind why you make claims that you couldn't possibly know are fact or fiction?

Please show some if you think otherwise.

I’m quite sure that I’ve already shown that I think otherwise.

Locked? Show a better method if you can and I’ll use that. I have no loyalty to any particular method.

You must have loyalty to a particular method, otherwise you would not confidently assert that there is no evidence of the existence of God, and that people who have faith in such an understanding are completely blind.

You appear judgmental

I think judgemental is a harsh word, especially as I don’t know you. I think “criticizable” would be a better placed description.

I’ll use the best method possible. Again show something better if you can.

I am not criticizing the method, I think the method is great for acquiring some knowledge. I'm criticizing you.

Knowledge of what?

Of what it is you are criticizing.

No we don’t – we can simply withhold belief.

You didn’t understand my point did you?
I said, "WHEN" we believe something.
It is clear that you believe there is no evidence for God’s existence, but I doubt whether you have a clear view of all evidences that exist.

If there is no evidence for God then any belief that he does exist is blind faith.

But you don’t know that there is no evidence for God, you’re only repeating what you have been told, by a community which you personally think has the best method, and most probably the only one, at acquiring knowledge. Therefore you are being blind, because you yourself have no knowledge of the subject matter.

My background, experience or understanding is irrelevant as far as the truth of this statement is concerned.

1) Your background and experience are very relevant, as it is you making these claims.
2) If you don’t understand what it is you are actually talking about, then your claims have no value.
3) There is no “truth” in your statement, it is entirely your opinion and that of the community you are loyal to.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Raithere

I don't need to. I wait until after I hear what someone has to say to determine how much faith to have in them.



It's self evident. If you want to know if objects of different mass fall at the same or differing rates you drop two objects of different mass from the same height and observe.

I wouldn’t go as far as to say it is self-evident but I do know where you’re coming from. Everything must start from the person, and I believe faith to be the opener.

As of yet, no one has come up with a way to test this, which is why ID is not scientifically valid, it relies upon an argument from ignorance.

Ignorance of what exactly?

Even if this were true it would not explain why you are unable to understand what that point is.

Believe me Rait, your point is very simple to understand. When you speak of faith, it seems to me you explain it as though you were explaining a film, as if it is a separate principle from oneself.

Irrelevant; faith is not required for science.

You’re missing my point. Science is a subject matter, religion is a subject matter. One cannot have faith purely in a subject matter, faith is a people thing, it is personal. When learning to do something such as riding a bicycle, people generally do not have faith in the machine, (unless it is prone to fault then they lack faith) but they generally have faith in themselves or the person who is teaching. The faith is not loud or total subservience. It is a quiet feeling of confidence, self-belief, self-trust and trust in others involved, and a determination to complete the task at hand. That’s what faith is. I have faith in the scientific method and religion when performed by competent, un-biased people. But the true test is in how I act upon that faith, not what information I have accumulated.

That's the great thing about science; even if you completely disbelieve in it, it still works. No matter what you may believe; if you drop two objects of different masses they fall at the same rate (excepting for wind resistance, of course).

That’s great for what it is, but knowing that 2 objects of different masses fall at the same rate, cannot satisfy my yearning to understand the meaning of life.

What is the relevance of faith in science in your opinion?
It doesn’t need to have any relevance, it just is. It kicks in as and when it is necassery, whether it is known to the person or not.

Because proof is not an all or nothing proposition, belief based upon evidence relies upon a preponderance of evidence and an absence of conflicting evidence.

I totally understand your point, because I myself have this experience.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Katazia]

Okinrus,

Newton was wrong because his model of gravity was not perfectly accurate; his model, while practical, was wrong.

As I said you do not understand science - http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/education/EducatorsGuide/Page9.html

Spiritual insight does not require blind faith, nor even belief in the existence of God.

”Spiritual” refers to supernatural qualities. The existence of the supernatural and therefore anything ‘spiritual’ also has no evidence and can also only be believed on irrational faith.

If you do not have evidence then your belief is irrational faith.

If you did not have evidence of the non-existence of God, it would be irrational faith to believe that God is non-existent.

Yes precisely – I believe you now understand that faith is irrational.

Now you've mentioned evolution as some sort of evidence, but it's not.

Evolution is not evidence, evolution is fact supported by colossal evidence. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

If God was outside of time, the amount of time that evolution took would be insignificant.

And if fairies would do my laundry every time then I’d have more time for sciforums. What’s your point?

No, it impossible for science to prove the non-existence of God because of His omnipotence.

Adding further imaginary properties to an imaginary being say nothing about what science can and can’t do.

God could, indeed, divorce himeself from his creation so that none of his creation could ever see or detect him.

Without any evidence all you are doing is adding another chapter to an already existing fairy tale.

No, the author states evidence, which could come from practically anywhere.

If evidence cannot be detected then you can’t claim there is any evidence.

No one has seen an atom through their own eyes, so your denying much of what we know about the world.

I can’t believe you are that naïve – when we talk of ‘seeing’ in these debates we aren’t referring to just physical sight. Science has extensive abilities to see and detect things way beyond the limitations of human sight.

But that is impossible because all methods that we have for discovering something necessarily change what we are discovering.

When we detect a new distant galaxy through a radio telescope how does that change that galaxy?

Believing in the existence of God does not imply that man is special.

If you were a Deist then that might be true but to Christianity man is considered very special and considered the pinnacle of God’s creation – e.g. in Christian mythology man is so special that he was even created in God’s image.

What is true self-knowledge?

That you must ask means you are not ready to understand.

Kat

 

[okinrus]

As I said you do not understand science - http://einstein.stanford.edu/conten...uide/Page9.html

No, I think I made the point that gravity in a practical sense is used by engineers and could be consider accurate with an appropriate margin of error. However, the theory itself does not reflect reality. Now, you are just carping at my example. It's clear that a rational process based upon examples can have an erronous conclusion due to limitations in the measurements and implicit assumptions.

”Spiritual” refers to supernatural qualities. The existence of the supernatural and therefore anything ‘spiritual’ also has no evidence and can also only be believed on irrational faith.

If you do not have evidence then your belief is irrational faith.

Like I said, evidence. It does not have to be scientific evidence. For example, I found that the miracles at Fatima and Zeitun were convincing.

Evolution is not evidence, evolution is fact supported by colossal evidence

I think you misunderstood what I said. Evolution is not evidence for or against the existence of God.

When we detect a new distant galaxy through a radio telescope how does that change that galaxy?

I think this <a href="http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html">principle</a> implies that we will never have complete knowledge of even a single electron in our universe. It seems to me that science can determine some knowledge about a given galaxy, however this knowledge is never without some probability of error. Also, since all information travels at the speed of light, it is inconceivable that we could obtain knowledge of objects outside our sphere of reference.

If you were a Deist then that might be true but to Christianity man is considered very special and considered the pinnacle of God’s creation – e.g. in Christian mythology man is so special that he was even created in God’s image.

Man was created in the image of God, not God's image.

That you must ask means you are not ready to understand.

What must I do to obtain this so-called self-knowledge. Am I capable?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

It does not have to be scientific evidence. For example, I found that the miracles at Fatima and Zeitun were convincing.
----------
M*W: Just because we cannot scientifically explain the existence of the Spirit AT THIS TIME, doesn't mean that it does not exist.
Miracles can be anything from escaping death to watching a flower grow. Life, itself, is a miracle. We need to appreciate the lowest form of life, like a rock or a sea shell.
----------
okinrus: Man was created in the image of God, not God's image.
----------
M*W: The "image of God" means "spiritual image," and not our physical appearance. Humankind is created in the spiritual image of its Creator, so humankind can live and act as God on Earth. That is why I believe humanity IS what we call God. God is humanity. God works through humanity.
----------
okinrus: What must I do to obtain this so-called self-knowledge. Am I capable?
----------
M*W: This "so-called self-knowledge" is like an awakening in the Spirit. You and every other human being alive is worthy of this gift of enlightenment. I would focus on the question, "Why am I here?" Then really do some soul-searching. There's only one reason you're here--you're here as God's representative, but more than that, you are one tiny piece of God with a special purpose, but you are important to the Whole. The Whole would not be complete without you! The Kingdom of God is Within!

 

[Katazia]

Okinrus,

What must I do to obtain this so-called self-knowledge. Am I capable?

I need to apologize to you, my comment was condescending although I didn’t mean that. For me it was a realization that came after a lifetime of experience and very much an epiphany that gave me a perspective of the big picture. I’m not sure that this is something that can be studied or learnt.

Kat

 

[okinrus]

M*W: The "image of God" means "spiritual image," and not our physical appearance. Humankind is created in the spiritual image of its Creator, so humankind can live and act as God on Earth. That is why I believe humanity IS what we call God. God is humanity. God works through humanity.

Agreed, most Christians believe that Jesus assumed human flesh at the time of the incarnation. Being made in the image of God refers to us having a free will like God's.

M*W: This "so-called self-knowledge" is like an awakening in the Spirit. You and every other human being alive is worthy of this gift of enlightenment. I would focus on the question, "Why am I here?"

That's the wrong question. It should be "are you here yet?", which I ask myself and I am asked. Those who are in His here are here and hear him and know they are here. It is not physical location but within God.

 

[okinrus]

I need to apologize to you, my comment was condescending although I didn’t mean that. For me it was a realization that came after a lifetime of experience and very much an epiphany that gave me a perspective of the big picture. I’m not sure that this is something that can be studied or learnt.

Not everyone can be as good as you at science. It's one of the virtues -- wisdom is a worthy goal.

 

[Godless]

Miracles can be anything from escaping death to watching a flower grow. Life, itself, is a miracle. We need to appreciate the lowest form of life, like a rock or a sea shell.

Well I like this a bit. However let me put a little clarification: The "experience" of living in itself is a miracle, the fact that we are here! everything that we experience, because we are alive, see, touch, smell and all emotionals experiences an individual has through out his life, because after death it is all gone, and gone forever. So in essense "life is the miracle".

Godless.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Well I like this a bit. However let me put a little clarification: The "experience" of living in itself is a miracle, the fact that we are here! everything that we experience, because we are alive, see, touch, smell and all emotionals experiences an individual has through out his life, because after death it is all gone, and gone forever. So in essense "life is the miracle".

Godless.

----------
M*W: Here's another twist. The "experience" of living requires us to be able to breath. Taking a "breath" means to "inspire." Therefore, that means that everyone alive inspires. So that would mean that the Bible was written by people where weren't dead. (I don't know where I'm going with this...), but what that means to me is atheists are also "inspired." Criminals are also "inspired." Saints were also "inspired." Wouldn't this simply mean those who are "experiencing life" are those who are inspired? I believe that death doesn't exist, only transition from an inspired state to an uninspired state, but life such as it is continues for eternity. The memory of a person lives on. The life experiences created by this person live on (i.e. children, grandchildren, art, poetry, music, etc.). So where does inspiration stop? I don't know. Does it ever really end? I don't think so. Our inspiration is our higher power.

 

[Godless]

Well M*W, that is freaky turn of events! I try and make sense of nonsense.
Do you remember the movie "A beutiful mind?" did you see it?.

In that movie, he was hallucinating that there were evil plots against America, and his hallucinating characters, were an FBI agent, a best friend from college, and his nice.

Thus when they found out all the data this mathemitical genious had collected and posted on a wall everywhere, to show his evidence that there were political plots against Ameriva, I only asked one question "what did he see?"

Inspiration to me is "enlightened cognition", thus the spiritualist had it. Jesus, Buddah, Mohamed, Krishna, Plato, and then the only non spiritualist of the bunch also had it Aristotle.

Godless.