How to prove God.

[rational experiences]

Science lied as a man theist.
Science knows it lied as a science man told another science man you are wrong.

So if we look only at living man today as any human experience was self owned previously are all deceased human's. We do what he does to theory then you can define if he is lying today.

Just by circumstance not for natural earth O gods body. It's heavens. Or natural human life. Natural its origin is first.

A human biology science says life itself should be equal. Same DNA is a human first.

So any diverse review is owned by everyone. So it is not the same dna false idea a perfect human first.

As first DNA should just own one human as two parents. For all humans to be equal.

Science in biology answer occult theist cosmic no balances to answer direct string thoughts to self human life beginnings by equating equal balances.

Liar even before he theories.

As gases are created. Balances are present. We live only inside water oxygenated body. As science states. Humans not a science state theory resource.

No argument for a human in science.

As life by human stated group is family law is natural origins. Natural is highest and first. Today diverse.

Change involves a condition of advice of safety.

The reason a human told another human you lied in science. Because of self change.

If science theories I want my machine to interact replacing its resources based on life cell replacement studies biological. Then my first lie is a machine is not biological.

Then you would realise why he is involving biblical human life sacrificed studies today.

As evil advice.

Then we would as over conscious human awareness as non theists say your machine is physically present equates non correct word use.

As it is not physical bio. It's physicality natural mass history owned also not human.

Yet we can say machine outside mass is interactive now by presence in same natural atmosphere as life. Just as a machine.

So you could not then claim now my reaction will interact inside of my machine with outside natural conditions. Or else machine conditions would change so would biological life change.

Yet I think you do theory outside of machine body with your new machine. As thesis.

So science said reactions inside machine are based on a coldest pre existing mass to be converted safely. Yet the machine status is knowingly not safe.

As if outside Storm activity causes a plant to shut down then it is proven machine wrong. Safety conditions already state machine use dangerous.

To a natural life those statuses claim you lie about life safety continuance.

Why. Natural human talking to a natural human says lying is a human status.

So if humans studied natural history earth body converting and they were not present then how was that status equal to life existing when mass was notated as disappearing first?

What a lie as science in science meant.

God disappeared is the first science teaching from mass.

If a human claims God was my father when a man human is our father now you know why life was destroyed and disappeared.

 

[F1fan]

1. Science cannot explain the Spiritual Reasons why people believe in God.
2. Science cannot explain the Evidence for God.

Let's note that if this 'evidence" can't be explained by science, then it can't be explained with reason, and if that's the case then it's dubious evidence and a reasonable mind will reject it.

1. Spiritual Reasons = Being guided by God.

OK, since no gods are known to exist, and these are just claims, then the BELIEF in God can be examined and explained by science. The ASSUMPTION that God guides people can be explained by science as religious behavior. Even your bluffing with bogus claims here can be explained.

So "spiritual reasons" are just religious belief. It's not special. it's not exempt. You're seeking a "God of the gaps" type of special and mysterious exemption to hide your belief. But sorry, that just doesn't work because you can't demonstrate your God exists outside of human imagination.

2. Evidence for God = Messengers of God

We've been over the "messengers of God" issue. You failed to offer any way to discern an actual messenger of God from a fraud or liar. And you haven't shown us that any messengers have actually offered any advice or truth that is beyond the capacity of the human mind to invent.

I did not evade answering, I answered. I said: Science can explain some of the reasons for religious behavior, but science cannot explain all of the reasons for religious behavior. That means there are some reasons that science cannot explain.

But you didn't explain how you know better than the scientists who study religious behavior. You offered no coherent exceptions that science can't explain. You offered no credible examples of religious behavior that can't be explained. You just made a blanket claim as if you're bluffing and afraid your religious b belief and experiences are ordinary.

I respect scientific findings but I do not agree with all of them. Why should I? Do scientists all agree with each other?

Which books have you read? Have you read any of Michael Shermer's books?

I find your claims of doing research to be untrue because you never cite any resources that you've actually looked into. Are you lying to the group about this?[/QUOTE]

 

[Muffled]

I believe there is a simple way to prove God. It may seem too simplistic at first, but that's not the intention.
Throughout my life, there have been times when I have called out to God whilst being in mortal danger, and He saved me. When I pray, He answers without fail and shows me that He is listening. When I was younger, I required evidence (Christian apologetics) to reinforce my faith in God. Now, I don't need that to know that my God is real, He has proven Himself to me.
To those who are skeptical of the idea of God, the way to prove God is this. Allow yourself to suspend your skepticism momentarily and ask God (however you understand God) to reveal Himself to you. My God answers without fail.
To both the skeptic and the believer, this methodology may seem silly. The believer might say "God has revealed Himself completely through the Bible! We are not to test Him, He does not reveal Himself in the present day."
If a skeptic is on the fence as to whether God is real or not, let them do this. Simply ask God to reveal Himself. God will prove Himself to you.

I believe unfortunately that doesn't work for everyone. Even after my wife received Jesus as her Lord and Savior she still could not hear God. She did come to God by answered prayer though. It is a fairly long story if you wish to hear it.

 

[Muffled]

Why does one need to "prove God."

I can breathe just fine without proving air.

Air isn't intelligent and can't communicate. That there is a non-corporeal being that can do that requires more even though He is as close as your breath.

 

[Muffled]

I think i have a little different "relationship" with God than that my friend.
I do not ask Allah for something in my life, only ask for protection and wisdom so that i can get closer to Allah.
To assume it is from Allah is also not a wise thing to do. Because it is my own effort in life that will make the change for me, not Allah. Allah do guide me in the right direction

How do i know it is Allah? Because i believe so

I believe just believing it doesn't make it so. I have met people who believed they heard from God and they were in error. The Christian is guaranteed the Holy Spirit but a Muslim is not. Even so a Christian can have the Holy Spirit and still not be able to hear Him.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I believe just believing it doesn't make it so. I have met people who believed they heard from God and they were in error. The Christian is guaranteed the Holy Spirit but a Muslim is not. Even so a Christian can have the Holy Spirit and still not be able to hear Him.

Belief in it self do not save a muslim, only a hard work fixing my one errors in life, and follow/practicing the teaching so the vail is taken away can make a sufi realize Allah from within.

 

[Truthseeker]

@F1fan Why do you insist that you have to be right? I see the implication we should rely only on science, and all of what you consider to be proven by science has to be true. This looks like what is called scientism. Leave people alone who see things differently than you do. This looks like something like proselytization to me. Trying to convert people to your point of view, to force them to see things your way. There is a double standard everywhere when atheists try to do this. I don't see Trailblazer trying to force you to believe as she does. She has told me she knows she won't change your mind. I think she's mindful of others that are watching and that's why she's arguing. Probably you see her as trying to force you to see things her way. She's stating how she sees things. You think apparently there is some terrible harm coming to her because she believes in God.

Sorry I have trouble controlling my emotions and I'm probably flying off the handle here. I don't like arrogance, and I see arrogance here.

From earlier statements I get the impression you have a prejudice that all theists are unreasonable, and you have to get them to see what you consider reason.

I had resolved earlier to have nothing to do with you anymore and I'm not being consistent with that. I don't like to argue repeatedly with people.

I think @Trailblazer argues with people like you too long. That's a judgement call. Those that are watching won't be influenced any further either, I don't think. She controls what she says to others than I do as far as emotions, I think.

I'll try to avoid talking to you in the future.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said:
1. Science cannot explain the Spiritual Reasons why people believe in God.
2. Science cannot explain the Evidence for God.

Let's note that if this 'evidence" can't be explained by science, then it can't be explained with reason, and if that's the case then it's dubious evidence and a reasonable mind will reject it.

Let’s note that reason is not confined to science. Science cannot touch religion with a ten foot pole because science and religion fall under a completely different purview.

A reasonable mind, what is that? Do you mean a closed mind that cannot even look at anything except science? How is that reasonable? An atheist who only looks at science is no different from a religious person who only looks at religion. It is the pot calling the kettle black.

1. Spiritual Reasons = Being guided by God.

OK, since no gods are known to exist, and these are just claims, then the BELIEF in God can be examined and explained by science. The ASSUMPTION that God guides people can be explained by science as religious behavior. Even your bluffing with bogus claims here can be explained.

I said Spiritual Reasons = Being guided by God. In other words being guided by God is one an example of a spiritual reason for religious beliefs.

I made no CLAIMS or ASSUMPTIONS. This is my belief. My BELIEF in God cannot be examined and explained by science because it is outside if the scope of science. That is like saying that the construction work I want to have done on my house can be examined and permitted by a medical doctor. It is outside the scope of a medical doctor to give permits for construction work. Giving permits is done by the Dept. of Labor and Industries permitting division.

The BELIEF that God guides people can be described by science as religious behavior, but it cannot be explained by science because it is outside the scope of science to explain religious beliefs.

So "spiritual reasons" are just religious belief. It's not special. it's not exempt.

Spiritual reasons are exempt from scientific analysis because the human spirit (soul) is outside the scope of scientific analysis.

You're seeking a "God of the gaps" type of special and mysterious exemption to hide your belief. But sorry, that just doesn't work because you can't demonstrate your God exists outside of human imagination.

I do not need an exemption because I do not need an excuse for my beliefs. I am not trying to demonstrate God because God cannot be demonstrated. Here is the reason why: God is Spirit

2. Evidence for God = Messengers of God

We've been over the "messengers of God" issue. You failed to offer any way to discern an actual messenger of God from a fraud or liar.

And you haven't shown us that any messengers have actually offered any advice or truth that is beyond the capacity of the human mind to invent.

I did not FAIL at that since it is not my job to do your research and prove things to you.

But you didn't explain how you know better than the scientists who study religious behavior.

I never claimed to know better than scientists who study religious behavior. All I said was that science cannot explain all of the reasons for religious behavior. To state that science can explain all the reasons for religious behavior is illogical:

all or nothing fallacy. Definition: When an inference is made based on two options (many times extreme) are given as if they were the only ones when other options exist (which are many times more probable than the two presented), then the resulting error in reasoning is known as the all or nothing fallacy.
Accident, ad hominem, all or nothing, equivocation and ...

And since science cannot explain all the reasons for religious behavior that means that there are reasons that science cannot explain.

You offered no coherent exceptions that science can't explain.

I offered two exceptions that science cannot explain.

1. Science cannot explain the Spiritual Reasons why people believe in God.
2. Science cannot explain the Evidence for God.

You offered no credible examples of religious behavior that can't be explained.

I offered two examples. I do not care if they are credible to atheists. Why would they be?

1. Science cannot explain people being guided by God.
2. Science cannot explain the Messengers of God

Which books have you read? Have you read any of Michael Shermer's books?

I find your claims of doing research to be untrue because you never cite any resources that you've actually looked into. Are you lying to the group about this?

I never made any claims that I did any scientific research so how could I be lying?

 

[F1fan]

@F1fan Why do you insist that you have to be right?

Where did I ever write that I insist that I had to be right?

I see the implication we should rely only on science, and all of what you consider to be proven by science has to be true. This looks like what is called scientism. Leave people alone who see things differently than you do.

Leave people alone? This is a debate forum we volunteer to be a part of. When people post their views then they need to be prepared for debate. If it makes people upset their solution is not post beliefs that will be scrutinized.

This looks like something like proselytization to me. Trying to convert people to your point of view, to force them to see things your way.

That's called debate. Claiming special and divine knowledge without any test in reality is proselytization. Pointing out facts and knowledge and reason is debate.

There is a double standard everywhere when atheists try to do this.

Quite the contrary. Theists want their magic and supernatural beliefs to be respected as if it has the status of science. Religious concepts haven't earned that status. Science shows its work step by step, and corrects itself when there's an error. Religious views show what their guru says is true, and there's no test for these views except personal meaning assignment.

I don't see Trailblazer trying to force you to believe as she does. She has told me she knows she won't change your mind. I think she's mindful of others that are watching and that's why she's arguing. Probably you see her as trying to force you to see things her way. She's stating how she sees things. You think apparently there is some terrible harm coming to her because she believes in God.

Well she has her views, not absolute knowledge. She has the opportunity to explain why her views are true objectively, but has serious problems doing that as most critics point out time after time. This is an opportunity for her to learn the limitations of her thinking. These forums offer all of us opportunity to learn. But there needs to be an openness to learn. being defensive about beliefs is not open minded.

Sorry I have trouble controlling my emotions and I'm probably flying off the handle here. I don't like arrogance, and I see arrogance here.

That's points out things you need to learn.

Is it arrogant to acknowledge only science can verify it's results while religion can't? Or is it arrogant to reject science because a person has religious views science doesn't support?

From earlier statements I get the impression you have a prejudice that all theists are unreasonable, and you have to get them to see what you consider reason.

Could it be that you just don't like my debate approach. Can you point out where I am factually wrong about anything?

I think @Trailblazer argues with people like you too long. That's a judgement call. Those that are watching won't be influenced any further either, I don't think. She controls what she says to others than I do as far as emotions, I think.

It's her choice. Have you considered the possibility she debates because she has things to learn? There's no guarantee lessons in life will be comfortable.

I had resolved earlier to have nothing to do with you anymore and I'm not being consistent with that. I don't like to argue repeatedly with people.

I'll try to avoid talking to you in the future.

Avoidance doesn't seem a good strategy for a truth seeker. If you are upset perhaps it indicates that the truth isn't what you want, but is there before you that you find uncomfortable.

 

[YoursTrue]

Something unproven is not a fact...

Besides, so-called facts change.

 

[F1fan]

Let’s note that reason is not confined to science. Science cannot touch religion with a ten foot pole because science and religion fall under a completely different purview.

Why? Why does religion get a pass while science has to follow rules that demonstrate it's true?

A reasonable mind, what is that? Do you mean a closed mind that cannot even look at anything except science? How is that reasonable? An atheist who only looks at science is no different from a religious person who only looks at religion. It is the pot calling the kettle black.

I'm open to whatever you can present as evidence. Above you just stated you want religion to have its own standards, that's not reasonable. All ideas are subject to the same standard of reason, regardless how good it feels to us. And as far as open minded, I'm open to facts, reason, and science to explain how things are true because it shows its work. Religion doesn't, faith is unreliable, so it fails to demonstrate it's true. That's not the problem of a rational mind, its a problem with the ideas, so a rational mind throws them out.

I said Spiritual Reasons = Being guided by God. In other words being guided by God is one an example of a spiritual reason for religious beliefs.

Yeah, gods aren't known to exist. Assuming a God exists isn't factual, so it's no basis for reason.

And how does a person distinguish being guided by an actual God versus following their own illusion of a God? You've offered no rational or factual way to discern this. So this is not a reliable reason. It's all subjective and at the whim of the individual.

I made no CLAIMS or ASSUMPTIONS. This is my belief. My BELIEF in God cannot be examined and explained by science because it is outside if the scope of science. That is like saying that the construction work I want to have done on my house can be examined and permitted by a medical doctor. It is outside the scope of a medical doctor to give permits for construction work. Giving permits is done by the Dept. of Labor and Industries permitting division.

When you state your belief in a debate as if it's true then it is a claim. You make many, many claims.

The BELIEF that God guides people can be described by science as religious behavior, but it cannot be explained by science because it is outside the scope of science to explain religious beliefs.

It's part of your BELIEF that your belief is outside the scope of science. This is a known belief and that itself has been explained. The reason theists want their beliefs to be outside the scope of science so they don't have to acknowledge the dubious nature of their own fallible minds.

Spiritual reasons are exempt from scientific analysis because the human spirit (soul) is outside the scope of scientific analysis.

This is yet another claim that has no factual basis. Souls are not known to exist.

Now what IS true is that science canner examine souls as believed in religion, and that's because there's nothing that the word "soul" conforms to as a real phenomenon. Science can explain why people think a should is real.

I do not need an exemption because I do not need an excuse for my beliefs. I am not trying to demonstrate God because God cannot be demonstrated. Here is the reason why: God is Spirit

You can believe anything you want. But as soon as you introduce your belief as an issue to discuss and debate in an open forum then be prepared for scrutiny.

I did not FAIL at that since it is not my job to do your research and prove things to you.

If you claims X is true then it is your job to demonstrate it's true when asked, or concede it's just your belief and unverifiable.

Be aware of how you write. If you say "I believe X is true" it admits your judgment, and you have a burden of proof. If you write "X is true" then you are claiming some factual phenomenon and it's on you to show how this is factual.

I never claimed to know better than scientists who study religious behavior. All I said was that science cannot explain all of the reasons for religious behavior. To state that science can explain all the reasons for religious behavior is illogical:

How do you know sincere can't explain it all? What can't it explain?

Religious behavior is less complex than the variety of concepts believed true. There is a strong pattern of behavior that is observed. The religious mind has even been scanned to see where the ideas are processing and how the ideas process through brains. It's very interesting work and I suspect you underestimate what it concludes.

And since science cannot explain all the reasons for religious behavior that means that there are reasons that science cannot explain.

I offered two exceptions that science cannot explain.

1. Science cannot explain the Spiritual Reasons why people believe in God.
2. Science cannot explain the Evidence for God.

And as I explained you are assuming "spiritual reasons" are valid, which they are not. And the evidence you and other theists have presented are not conclusive for any god existing, so that's irrelevant. You are thinking from WITHIN your religious beliefs, so you aren't properly understanding how science approaches behavior.

I offered two examples. I do not care if they are credible to atheists. Why would they be?

1. Science cannot explain people being guided by God.
2. Science cannot explain the Messengers of God

And I explained that gods are not known to exist, nor are any people known to be guided by any gods, so that's not an exception. And your messengers of God cannot be distinguished from frauds, so that is irrelevant.

You lack a great deal of fact and data. You rely too much on your assumptions and beliefs, which ARE exempt from science. Science don't allow assumptions and beliefs to conduct research.

 

[Trailblazer]

Where did I ever write that I insist that I had to be right?

A better question is: Where did you ever admit you could be wrong or that anyone else could be right?

Quite the contrary. Theists want their magic and supernatural beliefs to be respected as if it has the status of science. Religious concepts haven't earned that status. Science shows its work step by step, and corrects itself when there's an error. Religious views show what their guru says is true, and there's no test for these views except personal meaning assignment.

Why do you keep comparing religion with science and trying to make science superior to religion? Science is very useful for what science is designed to do but it is not designed to address the non-physical or the supernatural and it is not designed to address morality. Conversely, religion is not designed to address the physical world.

Well she has her views, not absolute knowledge. She has the opportunity to explain why her views are true objectively, but has serious problems doing that as most critics point out time after time. This is an opportunity for her to learn the limitations of her thinking. These forums offer all of us opportunity to learn. But there needs to be an openness to learn.

The same thing applies to you. You have no absolute knowledge and there are limitations in your thinking because it is one-sided. My thinking is not one-sided because I see the value in both science and religion. How can you learn anything if you keep conflating religion with science and insist that religion should be testable like science? For obvious logical reasons religion cannot be tested like science. Religion will always have a subjective component but that does not mean religious people cannot ever be objective. To say that a person is either objective or not objective would be the fallacy if black and white thinking.

Is it arrogant to acknowledge only science can verify it's results while religion can't? Or is it arrogant to reject science because a person has religious views science doesn't support?

Science does not support or fail to support religious views because religion is outside the purview of science.

Who is rejecting science? Baha'is do not reject science. Quite the contrary, Baha'is believe that science is absolutely necessary for the continual progress of mankind.

Science and Religion

Bahá’ís reject the notion that there is an inherent conflict between science and religion, a notion that became prevalent in intellectual discourse at a time when the very conception of each system of knowledge was far from adequate. The harmony of science and religion is one of the fundamental principles of the Bahá’í Faith, which teaches that religion, without science, soon degenerates into superstition and fanaticism, while science without religion becomes merely the instrument of crude materialism. “Religion,” according to the Bahá’í writings, “is the outer expression of the divine reality. Therefore, it must be living, vitalized, moving and progressive.”1 “Science is the first emanation from God toward man. All created things embody the potentiality of material perfection, but the power of intellectual investigation and scientific acquisition is a higher virtue specialized to man alone. Other beings and organisms are deprived of this potentiality and attainment.”2

So far as earthly existence is concerned, many of the greatest achievements of religion have been moral in character. Through its teachings and through the examples of human lives illumined by these teachings, masses of people in all ages and lands have developed the capacity to love, to give generously, to serve others, to forgive, to trust in God, and to sacrifice for the common good. Social structures and institutional systems have been devised that translate these moral advances into the norms of social life on a vast scale. In the final analysis, the spiritual impulses set in motion by the Founders of the world’s religions—the Manifestations of God—have been the chief influence in the civilizing of human character.

‘Abdu’l-Bahá has described science as the “most noble” of all human virtues and “the discoverer of all things”.3 Science has enabled society to separate fact from conjecture. Further, scientific capabilities—of observing, of measuring, of rigorously testing ideas—have allowed humanity to construct a coherent understanding of the laws and processes governing physical reality, as well as to gain insights into human conduct and the life of society.

Taken together, science and religion provide the fundamental organizing principles by which individuals, communities, and institutions function and evolve.

Science and Religion | What Bahá’ís Believe

Avoidance doesn't seem a good strategy for a truth seeker. If you are upset perhaps it indicates that the truth isn't what you want, but is there before you that you find uncomfortable.

The same applies to you, but apparently you cannot see how it applies to you. Perhaps the truth about God and religion is not what you want.

Science does not have the truth about God, period. You cannot use science to prove that God exists and conversely you cannot use science to prove that God does not exist. It logically follows that you cannot use science to prove that all religious people are wrong about God existing because they all have some kind of mental or emotional defect.

 

[Truthseeker]

Avoidance doesn't seem a good strategy for a truth seeker. If you are upset perhaps it indicates that the truth isn't what you want, but is there before you that you find uncomfortable.

I get angry in the face of arrogance. It's a human failing I have. I don't want to blow up at people.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why? Why does religion get a pass while science has to follow rules that demonstrate it's true?

Because religion cannot be demonstrated the same way science is demonstrated. That is not a free pass, it just is what it is. Religion and science are completely different so their truths have to be demonstrated differently.

I'm open to whatever you can present as evidence. Above you just stated you want religion to have its own standards, that's not reasonable. All ideas are subject to the same standard of reason, regardless how good it feels to us.

I never said that religion has its own standards, I said it is not the same as science so it cannot be tested and proven the same way that science is tested proven

Who sets those standards of reason, you? Why do you think you can set the standards of reason for everything?

Why do you even bother to ask for evidence? You know what I consider evidence and you are not open to any evidence I have ever presented.

And as far as open minded, I'm open to facts, reason, and science to explain how things are true because it shows its work. Religion doesn't, faith is unreliable, so it fails to demonstrate it's true. That's not the problem of a rational mind, its a problem with the ideas, so a rational mind throws them out.

Science cannot prove that God exists, any rational mind knows that. A rational mind does not throw out religion because religion is not science. A rational mind understands that religion is not science so it cannot be held to the same standards of evidence.

Yeah, gods aren't known to exist. Assuming a God exists isn't factual, so it's no basis for reason.

I do not assume God exists, I believe that God exists.

No basis for reason? There is a reason to believe that God exists, it is called evidence. Religion and civilization are is the evidence that God exists.

When you state your belief in a debate as if it's true then it is a claim. You make many, many claims.

A belief is not a claim. I make no claims. Baha’u’llah made the claims, I believe the claims.

It's part of your BELIEF that your belief is outside the scope of science. This is a known belief and that itself has been explained. The reason theists want their beliefs to be outside the scope of science so they don't have to acknowledge the dubious nature of their own fallible minds.

It is not a belief that religion is outside the scope of science, it is a fact. Can you prove God exists in a scientific experiment? Everyone who can think logically knows that religion is outside the scope of science.

The reason atheists want their beliefs to be within the scope of science is so they won’t have to have any faith and they think that makes them intellectually superior to theists. What it really accomplishes is to make them look like idiots because they cannot see the difference between religion and science.

This is yet another claim that has no factual basis. Souls are not known to exist.

It is not a claim, it is a belief. Just because a soul cannot be proven to exist that does not mean a soul does not exist. Proof is not what makes anything exist, things either exist or not.

Now what IS true is that science cannot examine souls as believed in religion, and that's because there's nothing that the word "soul" conforms to as a real phenomenon. Science can explain why people think a soul is real.

Science cannot examine the soul because the soul is immaterial, it is just as simple as that. Science also cannot explain why people think a soul is real.

You can believe anything you want. But as soon as you introduce your belief as an issue to discuss and debate in an open forum then be prepared for scrutiny.

I am prepared for any scrutiny that can be thrown my way.

If you claims X is true then it is your job to demonstrate it's true when asked, or concede it's just your belief and unverifiable.

Be aware of how you write. If you say "I believe X is true" it admits your judgment, and you have a burden of proof. If you write "X is true" then you are claiming some factual phenomenon and it's on you to show how this is factual.

I never claimed anything is true, I said I believe it is true even though it is unverifiable.
I never claimed what I believe is factual, except for the facts that support my religious beliefs.
I have no burden to prove anything to anybody just because I believe it.

How do you know science can't explain it all? What can't it explain?

I know science cannot explain all the reasons for religious behavior because I know reasons science cannot explain. How do you know science can explain all the reasons for religious behavior? If someone says I believe because of X, and science does not account for X, are you going to say that person is lying?

Religious behavior is less complex than the variety of concepts believed true. There is a strong pattern of behavior that is observed. The religious mind has even been scanned to see where the ideas are processing and how the ideas process through brains. It's very interesting work and I suspect you underestimate what it concludes.

How many brains have been scanned? Does this account for all religious believers? What does this prove even about those who have been scanned?

And as I explained you are assuming "spiritual reasons" are valid, which they are not. And the evidence you and other theists have presented are not conclusive for any god existing, so that's irrelevant. You are thinking from WITHIN your religious beliefs, so you aren't properly understanding how science approaches behavior.

It is valid if a person says they believe for spiritual reasons. You have no right to speak for why people believe because you are a separate person.

It is valid if a person says they believe because of the evidence. You have no right to speak for why people believe because you are a separate person.

Conclusive that God exists? Nobody can ever prove that God exists as a fact, but that does not mean that God does not exist, since proof is not what makes God exist. Belief is also not what makes God exist, so what people believe has no bearing on whether God exists or not. God exists or not, regardless of what people believe.

It is not science approaching religious behavior, it is YOU addressing religious behavior and using a few articles you have read that make you believe that science has it all figured out, but I can find more articles on religious websites that state why people believe in God and the RATIONAL reasons for believing in God.

And I explained that gods are not known to exist, nor are any people known to be guided by any gods, so that's not an exception.

They are exceptions because they cannot be explained by science.

And your messengers of God cannot be distinguished from frauds, so that is irrelevant.

The Messengers of God can be distinguished from frauds, so that is not irrelevant.

You lack a great deal of fact and data. You rely too much on your assumptions and beliefs, which ARE exempt from science. Science don't allow assumptions and beliefs to conduct research.

You lack a great deal of fact and data. You rely too much on your assumptions and beliefs, which you call science. Science does not allow assumptions and beliefs to conduct research.

 

[Trailblazer]

I get angry in the face of arrogance. It's a human failing I have. I don't want to blow up at people.

I do not consider all anger a human failing, it depends upon why you are angry. Righteous indignation over an injustice you observe is not a human failing.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why? Why does religion get a pass while science has to follow rules that demonstrate it's true?


I'm open to whatever you can present as evidence. Above you just stated you want religion to have its own standards, that's not reasonable. All ideas are subject to the same standard of reason, regardless how good it feels to us. And as far as open minded, I'm open to facts, reason, and science to explain how things are true because it shows its work. Religion doesn't, faith is unreliable, so it fails to demonstrate it's true. That's not the problem of a rational mind, its a problem with the ideas, so a rational mind throws them out.


Yeah, gods aren't known to exist. Assuming a God exists isn't factual, so it's no basis for reason.

And how does a person distinguish being guided by an actual God versus following their own illusion of a God? You've offered no rational or factual way to discern this. So this is not a reliable reason. It's all subjective and at the whim of the individual.


When you state your belief in a debate as if it's true then it is a claim. You make many, many claims.


It's part of your BELIEF that your belief is outside the scope of science. This is a known belief and that itself has been explained. The reason theists want their beliefs to be outside the scope of science so they don't have to acknowledge the dubious nature of their own fallible minds.


This is yet another claim that has no factual basis. Souls are not known to exist.

Now what IS true is that science canner examine souls as believed in religion, and that's because there's nothing that the word "soul" conforms to as a real phenomenon. Science can explain why people think a should is real.


You can believe anything you want. But as soon as you introduce your belief as an issue to discuss and debate in an open forum then be prepared for scrutiny.


If you claims X is true then it is your job to demonstrate it's true when asked, or concede it's just your belief and unverifiable.

Be aware of how you write. If you say "I believe X is true" it admits your judgment, and you have a burden of proof. If you write "X is true" then you are claiming some factual phenomenon and it's on you to show how this is factual.


How do you know sincere can't explain it all? What can't it explain?

Religious behavior is less complex than the variety of concepts believed true. There is a strong pattern of behavior that is observed. The religious mind has even been scanned to see where the ideas are processing and how the ideas process through brains. It's very interesting work and I suspect you underestimate what it concludes.


And as I explained you are assuming "spiritual reasons" are valid, which they are not. And the evidence you and other theists have presented are not conclusive for any god existing, so that's irrelevant. You are thinking from WITHIN your religious beliefs, so you aren't properly understanding how science approaches behavior.


And I explained that gods are not known to exist, nor are any people known to be guided by any gods, so that's not an exception. And your messengers of God cannot be distinguished from frauds, so that is irrelevant.

You lack a great deal of fact and data. You rely too much on your assumptions and beliefs, which ARE exempt from science. Science don't allow assumptions and beliefs to conduct research.

I hope this is not off the topic. I don't think it is, but I glanced at a book written by a doctor (supposedly a well-educated person) who claimed to have died and in her dead state she spoke to an angel. I didn't read much of the book, just a few sentences, but enough to get the gist. Do I believe she spoke to an angel while she was dead? No, I do not. Do I believe her brain was not functioning properly? Yes, I do. Do I also believe she was visited by an angel, but not from God? That is also possible.

 

[YoursTrue]

Because religion cannot be demonstrated the same way science is demonstrated. That is not a free pass, it just is what it is. Religion and science are completely different so their truths have to be demonstrated differently.

I never said that religion has its own standards, I said it is not the same as science so it cannot be tested and proven the same way that science is tested proven

Who sets those standards of reason, you? Why do you think you can set the standards of reason for everything?

Why do you even bother to ask for evidence? You know what I consider evidence and you are not open to any evidence I have ever presented.

Science cannot prove that God exists, any rational mind knows that. A rational mind does not throw out religion because religion is not science. A rational mind understands that religion is not science so it cannot be held to the same standards of evidence.

I do not assume God exists, I believe that God exists.

No basis for reason? There is a reason to believe that God exists, it is called evidence. Religion and civilization are is the evidence that God exists.

A belief is not a claim. I make no claims. Baha’u’llah made the claims, I believe the claims.

It is not a belief that religion is outside the scope of science, it is a fact. Can you prove God exists in a scientific experiment? Everyone who can think logically knows that religion is outside the scope of science.

The reason atheists want their beliefs to be within the scope of science is so they won’t have to have any faith and they think that makes them intellectually superior to theists. What it really accomplishes is to make them look like idiots because they cannot see the difference between religion and science.

It is not a claim, it is a belief. Just because a soul cannot be proven to exist that does not mean a soul does not exist. Proof is not what makes anything exist, things either exist or not.

Now what IS true is that science cannot examine souls as believed in religion, and that's because there's nothing that the word "soul" conforms to as a real phenomenon. Science can explain why people think a soul is real.

Science cannot examine the soul because the soul is immaterial, it is just as simple as that. Science also cannot explain why people think a soul is real.

I am prepared for any scrutiny that can be thrown my way.

I never claimed anything is true, I said I believe it is true even though it is unverifiable.
I never claimed what I believe is factual, except for the facts that support my religious beliefs.
I have no burden to prove anything to anybody just because I believe it.

I know science cannot explain all the reasons for religious behavior because I know reasons science cannot explain. How do you know science can explain all the reasons for religious behavior? If someone says I believe because of X, and science does not account for X, are you going to say that person is lying?

How many brains have been scanned? Does this account for all religious believers? What does this prove even about those who have been scanned?

It is valid if a person says they believe for spiritual reasons. You have no right to speak for why people believe because you are a separate person.

It is valid if a person says they believe because of the evidence. You have no right to speak for why people believe because you are a separate person.

Conclusive that God exists? Nobody can ever prove that God exists as a fact, but that does not mean that God does not exist, since proof is not what makes God exist. Belief is also not what makes God exist, so what people believe has no bearing on whether God exists or not. God exists or not, regardless of what people believe.

It is not science approaching religious behavior, it is YOU addressing religious behavior and using a few articles you have read that make you believe that science has it all figured out, but I can find more articles on religious websites that state why people believe in God and the RATIONAL reasons for believing in God.

They are exceptions because they cannot be explained by science.

The Messengers of God can be distinguished from frauds, so that is not irrelevant.

You lack a great deal of fact and data. You rely too much on your assumptions and beliefs, which you call science. Science does not allow assumptions and beliefs to conduct research.

I gotta say that so far, from my examination of the posts about science and it's certainty or lack of it, I'm having doubts about the validity of much of what is often considered as knowledge and science, and yes, I take vaccinations. And appreciate those that work in that realm of science. It's kind of sad when I think about how much "good" some thinkers can do instead of wondering how things like the universe started "scientifically." Or spend all that money figuring how to fly to the moon instead of really helping mankind and the earth. Sad really sad.

 

[Brian2]

How did you arrive at the quantity of Gods....just one?

He told us.

 

[Brian2]

I hope this is not off the topic. I don't think it is, but I glanced at a book written by a doctor (supposedly a well-educated person) who claimed to have died and in her dead state she spoke to an angel. I didn't read much of the book, just a few sentences, but enough to get the gist. Do I believe she spoke to an angel while she was dead? No, I do not. Do I believe her brain was not functioning properly? Yes, I do. Do I also believe she was visited by an angel, but not from God? That is also possible.

Still Near Death Experiences are interesting in that many of them are about the unconscious giving verifiable evidence of what happened while they were unconscious or what happened in another room etc.
From you pov that could no doubt be spirits deceiving the person but from a scientific pov it should show that there is something, a spirit, that can leave the body and be conscious and come back to the body, imo.
Either way, deceiving spirits or a conscious spirit leaving the body, it shows the spiritual realm to be real.
So what does science do, try to show that it is all in a person's head.
Even this could be true for many of the NDEs about people seeing loved ones and being drawn to the light etc but reasonable it could not be true for those that give verifiable evidence of the patient knowing what happened in another room.
It may be, but should not be, embarrassing in science to claim evidence for the spiritual realm.

 

[Revoltingest]

He told us.

They gave different answers to others, eg, Norse,
Greeks, Romans, Hindus, etc. Perhaps you just
forgot to carry the 1 in your calculation?