My children, my husband, my friends. Not gods by any means, no need, i am quite happy without
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Hypothetical scenario for a world without religion
- Thread starter charlie sc
- Start date
My children, my husband, my friends. Not gods by any means, no need, i am quite happy without
There is nothing to indicate one can't be happy with or without having a god / God in one's life.
What the Bible is saying that if one ( whether happy or unhappy ) wants a resurrection that is where the God of the Bible enters the picture - 1 Corinthians 15:12-19.
And as 1 Corinthians 15:32 B says if the dead do not rise then as the old adage goes, eat, drink and be merry.........
Jumi
Well-Known Member
Not for me at least. God is God, doesn't matter if you sacrifice everything for it and become miserable. It won't change or help God.
Earthling
David Henson
Excellent! Thank you for such an articulate and well thought out and informed response, but . . . alas . . . it's bull****.
Saying that science is responsible for the complex process of posting on an Internet forum on the Web is like saying music is responsible for The Bohemian Rhapsody. It has no real meaning. It's like saying that trees, mountains, canyons and life are evidence of a creator.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
Scientific theories form the basis for why we are able to communicate here. Without science there would be no internet, no computers, or even The Bohemian Rhapsody.
I am also happy that my atoms will go on to create new live and last for ever... No god needed.
Without quantum mechanics (science), materials engineering (science), software engineering (science), control of electrical signals (science) both locally in your computer and wider, by the internet you would still be banging on drums to send messages
How do you think the semiconductor works?
How do you think the internet works?
We know how trees developed and grew, evolution
We know how mountains developed, plate tectonics
We know how canyons formed, erosion
And we know how life developed, abiogenesis
joe1776
Well-Known Member
I'm an agnostic not a theist but your OP sounds like scientism to me.
scientism: Excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.
Science, which deals with conscious reality, is probably done in the left side of the brain and it doesn't have access to the powerful unconscious which probably resides in the right side of the brain. People report some strange happenings which science can't study because they only have crude tools like fMRI to work with. Then of course there are those phenomena which might exist apart from the human brain.
Last edited:
the craziness of this question is that religions arose from just such a situation; if you follow the science of anthropology and sociology. as evolution evolved mankind's religions and understanding of the natural world evolved too.Imagine for a moment, a hypothetical scenario where everyone's memory of every religion disappeared and all the literature vanished.
How would one find or demonstrate a certain deity exists?
The reason I ask this is because science does not need previous literature to observe a phenomenon, hypothesise, verify, experiment and then create theories. It seems like scientific theories do not need previous literature the same way religion does and there's no way to replicate scripture.
a baby observes and then hypothesizes and then augments the hypothesis for a better hypothesis.
changing the word hypothesis for theory doesn't change the idea drastically unless the idea is totally discarded.
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
Your reply was very thought out and, I think, You’re the most intellectual honest theist I’ve met! You’re right, we might do it all over without some sort of deity intervention. However, don’t you think a deity would show themselves now to sort out the thousands of denominations, religions and non-theists? I don’t see why they’d show up in this hypothetical. in fact, with the rise of atheism, I’d think now would be a good time to show up.
You’re right about not changing the fundamentals of humanity. Consider, however, our vast knowledge, science, cultural integration, etc has already changed how humanity acts towards others and life. Therefore, it changes based on our upbringing and environment. For instance, I don’t see slavery as the norm anymore even though some religions may slightly promote it
Last edited:
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
Ok, so how can I find a deity today or in the hypothetical without examining religion?
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
Would you mind explaining this again?
Hypothesis, in science, usually means to predict a certain phenomenon. A theory is an explanation of phenomenon or phenomena. They are different things.
Last edited:
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
Perhaps I didn't explain myself well in the OP. I'm saying that science does not need previous literature to renew itself. People will still discover stuff, hypothesise, verify, etc. Stuff will be discovered, inventions made and theories thought out. For instance, there were at least two people, I know of, working on natural selection, because this idea was based on observation.
You didn't make much sense here. Can you, perhaps, cite anything you're trying to get at?
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
You're saying the conclusion to this dialogue would be the inception of a deity
?I need you to consider carefully what you're saying.
Audie
Veteran Member
Nah. You misunderstood, or choose not to grasp
what I said.
It has seemed to me that for those to whom the
"god" belief is central to their reality, "no god"
is just inconceivable. All is without form, and void.
"God", for all the versions that people come up with,
is completely undetectable. Nothing is known about it
including whether or not it exists. In all regards it meets
all the same specifications as anything does not exist
at all.
Just how that becomes the center point of reality for
some people is says something about the human mind,
yes. A quirk of some people's mentality does not very logically
translate into meaning that there is something greater
and longer lasting than the entire universe (multiversees).
If it does for you, it does.
I think deep down everyone knows God exists
when they bump into God again, they will already know Him.
As I see it, God is nothing like religion teaches.
Obviously this is what you think
I have encountered a lot of people who have told me in
their various ways that I really do believe, but,
wont be honest, just want to sin, am in Satan's
thrall, and all of the other things they come up
with. (make up)
Last edited:
you're going to get the same results, starting over. the mind fills in the blanks with what ever seems reasonable. doesn't make it a fact. so a baby starts out with an empty slate and then fills it up with preconceived notions that may, or may not, be true.
what you call the scientific methods is nothing but a human being recognizing what humans were doing naturally for thousands of years until Francis Bacon assigned a term to it. the scientific method was invented by one human. it was many humans recognizing what worked naturally.
real science doesn't have to use a vocabulary of two different words to prove an idea exists in reality. two words still add up to only 1 idea.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
I explained to you why science can't be expected to give us theories on the unconscious mind. So, it's reach is limited to conscious reality.
Augustus
…
Imagine for a moment, a hypothetical scenario where everyone's memory of every religion disappeared and all the literature vanished.
How would one find or demonstrate a certain deity exists?
The reason I ask this is because science does not need previous literature to observe a phenomenon, hypothesise, verify, experiment and then create theories. It seems like scientific theories do not need previous literature the same way religion does and there's no way to replicate scripture.
Science very much relies on the existing body of knowledge in order to progress. Also modern science developed out of a particular set of historical circumstances rather than being something that is innate to us.
If everyone forgot about science and all the scientific literature then not only would we need to rediscover all of the lost knowledge, we would have to recreate the very concept itself.
If, from scratch, you ran millions of 'simulated' histories of human development, you wouldn't get scriptures recreating in their current form, but in some of these alternative histories, you wouldn't get the sciences appearing in their modern form either.
Audie
Veteran Member
Which parts of the concept do you refer to?
If it can even be referred to as one concept.
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
To my shame, I have not read Bacon even though he's on my list. However, I think many people will disagree with you here. The scientific method is always evolving. For instance, Karl Popper hugely changed how science is conducted. You must remember, science is just a word, how we do it is more important. If I check Wiki, this is what is says "Although his practical ideas about such a method, the Baconian method, did not have a long-lasting influence, the general idea of the importance and possibility of a sceptical methodology makes Bacon the father of the scientific method." Therefore, you're just plain wrong to say that one person invented science, nor do I think science is an invention lol.
Huh? This is the Difference Between a Hypothesis and a Theory