Thanks for your reply, Andy.
I would say that the problem comes into play when nothing, in relation to a god entity, is proven to exist with scientific means. Ever.
If that's the case, then I think most of life doesn't exist, Tabba.
Life exists, and can be proven to exist whereas god cannot be proven to exist (at least not so far). Because we cannot prove B does not automatically follow that, therefore, A does not exist either. That's somewhat unreliable logic.
After all, can you scientifically prove to me that I love my wife, or my daughters;
IF you do, then we can certainly find plenty of credible, observable evidence of that, yes. We can collate evidence by means of studying your behavioural patterns and actions towards them. We could also measure, in the same way, whether or not you hated them, since your actions would be on the opposite end of that scale. Love is not just a bio-chemical feeling contained within the body of the 'lover'. Outward, physical signs can be seen, measured and felt by the recipients of the love, or the hate.
We could also measure your brain-chemistry when you're thinking of them, compared to when you're thinking of someone you do not love.
or prove scientifically why I enjoy helping develop a heritage railway?
Yes. By observation of personal, past experiences. It can easily be shown that human being preferences can and are formed by external stimuli.
There is far too much in life that has no scientific evidence - yet we know to exist - for your explanation to hold water.
Such as? *And you have to present actual items that we can examine under scrutiny.
Love, also,
can be proven to exist. It's a common logical error to believe that it cannot. When a person is in love, large amounts of neuro-chemicals can be measured to exist within the body (oxytocin, for example). We can measure and observe the difference between two humans who love each other and two who do not. Further, the physical feelings of love are, for the most part, commonly shared between all people. Actions of love between humans can, consistently, be observed and measured.
I've found that many theists often use the "love cannot be proven to exist" argument without really stopping and looking at how it undermines itself.
There is always the possibility that your own body healed itself.
There is that possibility, Tabba, except that the circumstances of the injury were such that such a healing would have been scientifically impossible, or so I was told after the event by doctors.
Ok. But we know from experience that many doctors claim that an injury will not self-heal, only to find that they were wrong. So, scientifically, it is possible, and evidenced all the time. We cannot begin the thinking process on the assumption that doctors are always right. It's fallacious logic and fails to deliver reliable end results.
As for whether it was Hindu, opposed to a Christian 'god', I wasn't aware that any sacrifices had been offered, as would normally be the case in any Hindu 'healing'. Rather, the prayer had been specifically directed to the Christian God.
Ok. Can you explain why so many people from other religions claim that
their god healed them, when they clearly do not believe in or pray to the christian god?
The fact that the change was all-but instantaneous indicates to me that (i) this was an answer to that specific prayer and (ii) that this was not some natural healing by my own body.
It could easily be explained by an injury that was incrementally healing over time, such that you didn't notice the small transitions to a full healing. I respect your right to believe otherwise, as the experience was personal to you, however, there
are other explanations that have a scientific explanation behind them.
Similarly, as most scientists acknowledge, for every answer they find, they find 2 or 3 new questions. It would seem likely to me that, if science was what some scientists claim it to be, then rather than finding more new questions that new answers, it would be reducing the number of questions that we ask.
Of course they do. If they didn't, the only alternative reality would be an instant, complete knowledge of everything! For science to be [only] reducing questions is a logical fallacy based on a starting-point that they have all the questions already laid out. Why do you presume that this would be the case? We are still relatively early-on in our search for answers to our ever increasing set of questions. It's perfectly natural that we do not have ALL of the questions to hand to begin with.
But why is there any need for bonding?
Can you imagine what
human civilisation would be like today if we hadn't been bonding all along? Would we even have survived this long? There's one fundamental human need right there.
After all, there are plenty of animals who not only do not bond other than to have intercourse, but who then completely ignore their offspring.
Sure, and those are
different species. Many species do not fly, either. Yet, for birds, it carries with it certain evolutionary advantages. Life is varied. Species that can not adapt to their environment do not survive in the long term. One animal species cannot always be compared to another.
These species continue to this day, suggesting that this isn't an evolutionary need.
Those species do not need to bond long-term. We're also overlooking the possibility that they will evolve to bond in the future.
So, are you saying that scientists - who are often the ones telling us this - can be wrong, or biased or even non-objective?
] I wasn't saying that in my comment that you're questioning, but for your convenience, I'll state right now that, yes, most definitely, some scientists do all of the above. And far worse!
In my opinion, blindly believing what 'the scientists' tell us is just as dangerous as believing what a religious fundie tells us.
We can, of course, question everything we are told and, indeed, question what we believe by faith or from plain old ignorance. I think that's healthy.
I tend to find that the 'god-argument' is too quickly offered as an explanation for things that can't easily be explained with scientific evidence. At the same time, I find that many scientific expplanations don't actually answer the question i have asked - but answer a question that the scientist wants me to have asked, or thought I asked.
Sure. That'll happen in life. Just like it'll happen at church when we ask our religious leaders for information. The moral of that tale is 'don't believe everything you are told to believe'.
or instance, I regularly ask - here and elsewhere - why humanity exists. Almost invariably, I am told that it exists as a result of evolution - and well it might, except that this has actually answered the question 'How?' rather than 'Why?'
I agree. Science does focus on the 'how', and not necessarily on the 'why'.
And within that question of 'why'.. there are many exciting and mysterious things to explore. Looking at them from a religious position is one way to approach the question, or one could simply look at it from a scientific or philosophical question. One could, also, just accept that there may be no reason at all.
Some might answer it "because god made us to love him". Though, this opens up another can of worms. Some others may say "because the universe is experiencing itself". Yet others may say "there is no why.. existence cannot be fathomed by our puny minds".
The jury is still out on the answer to such a question. Maybe we'll never know 'why' the universe and all that it's made of is here'. I?m looking forward to exploring it during my time here. I do find it such an interesting question to ask, regardless of the mechanics or philosophy behind it.
However, for me, in my search for some answers to my own little existence, I find the ramblings of ignorant, male-chauvinist goat-herders from thousands of years ago to be rather an unreliable source of answers to that extremely complex and wonderful question.
Home
Search
Calendar
Login
Register
Show Posts
