• 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!

Spiritual Evidence and Proofs of God’s Existence

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
This is not a thread a\bout politics, but one about the spiritual aspects of faith.
I mentioned the industrial revolution, as it was funded by usury.
Usury benefits the rich and enslaves the poor .. so..
Guess what else enslaves the poor - people who don't have machines that need a supply of affordable labour.

It seems to me you are not interested in looking at all problems which enslave the poor, just the one that your faith talks about.

In my view you have arbitrarily called the one your faith talks about a "spiritual" problem and the others as "political" problems as a pretext to ignore them.

In my opinion.
 

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
It seems to me you are not interested in looking at all problems which enslave the poor, just the one that your faith talks about..
No. I brought up the subject of usury, as I am convinced that it is the underlying cause of
climate-change. i.e. the financial system is to blame.

You said "Condemnation of usury is an idea invented by humans according to my understanding;"

and I said that it is irrelevant what you think, as it is a central issue in Abrahamic religion, regardless.

My original post..

..actually, mankind DOES need religion, except you do not perceive it.
..when mankind makes up his own values and way of life, it is not sustainable.
Mankind, as a whole, CANNOT succeed.
..and no, I shall not attempt to prove it, because I know where it will lead.
You will just deny all the points that I make.


..such as climate-change and economic collapse etc.

..so I think we are done, here.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
No. I brought up the subject of usury, as I am convinced that it is the underlying cause of
climate-change. i.e. the financial system is to blame.

You said "Condemnation of usury is an idea invented by humans according to my understanding;"

and I said that it is irrelevant what you think, as it is a central issue in Abrahamic religion, regardless.

My original post..

..actually, mankind DOES need religion, except you do not perceive it.
..when mankind makes up his own values and way of life, it is not sustainable.
Mankind, as a whole, CANNOT succeed.
..and no, I shall not attempt to prove it, because I know where it will lead.
You will just deny all the points that I make.


..such as climate-change and economic collapse etc.

..so I think we are done, here.
We don't need Abrahamic religion to condemn usury though as I explained by showing that humans did it long before Abrahamic religion did.

So you are the one denying points in my view.

I did not deny that usury has indirectly contributed to climate change by funding industrialisation. I just pointed out that industrialisation was necessary and need not have contributed to excessive climate-change had the population size been managed early on in my view.

In my opinion.
 

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
We don't need Abrahamic religion to condemn usury..
No, we don't.
Marx himself, criticised usury, on a non-religious basis.

..but that is neither here no there.
The fact is, that Christianity and Islam are the most populous religions of the world.

If people took them seriously, they would take heed..
..but unfortunately, we have become more concerned with worldly fortune than our moral behaviour.
We reap the consequences.

I did not deny that usury has indirectly contributed to climate change by funding industrialisation..
Fair enough..
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The fact is, that Christianity and Islam are the most populous religions of the world.

If people took them seriously, they would take heed..
I think they would take them more seriously if they didn't contain absurd and/or unsupportable claims mixed in with the useful bits such as condemnation of usury.

In my opinion.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
How does that even matter?
It matters to those who care about what is actually true.

Nobody is bothered by fictional stories being used to convey some kind of "moral lesson" or alike. Movies and books do that all the time.
Like Star Wars, which is about courage, standing up to bullies and love.

But in here, we are talking to people who insist on these fictional tales being actual history.
People who care about what is actually true, tend to be bothered by such obvious falsehoods.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
The fact is, that Christianity and Islam are the most populous religions of the world.

If people took them seriously, they would take heed..
..but unfortunately, we have become more concerned with worldly fortune than our moral behaviour.

Eum.................................................................

You seem completely unaware that climate change deniers are almost 100% comprised of religious people, particularly christians and muslims.
You seem completely unaware that it's primarily christians and muslims who are opposed to radical change of technology and societal organization to counter human induced climate change.

Not that they are inspired by their religion to act that way (not directly anyway), but to say that THEY are the "epitome" here of moral behavior as if that if it was upto "them" then we wouldn't have this issue and / or be able to resolve it.... is a very serious case of head-in-sand.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
It matters to those who care about what is actually true.

Nobody is bothered by fictional stories being used to convey some kind of "moral lesson" or alike. Movies and books do that all the time.
Like Star Wars, which is about courage, standing up to bullies and love.

But in here, we are talking to people who insist on these fictional tales being actual history.
People who care about what is actually true, tend to be bothered by such obvious falsehoods.
None of us can know what is actually true. All we can do is be honest about it and hope for the best.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
None of us can know what is actually true. All we can do is be honest about it and hope for the best.

Not only can we know what is actually true, we also can know what is definitely false.
And the religious myths under discussion here, fall in the category of the latter: definitely false
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Not only can we know what is actually true, we also can know what is definitely false.
And the religious myths under discussion here, fall in the category of the latter: definitely false
We can't possibly know how what we don't know now would alter what we think is true, now, were we to come to know it. And we clearly do not know all. So we cannot possibly (logically) be certain that what we currently think is true or false, is true or false. And to just blindly pretend otherwise would be both illogical and dishonest. We would be deceiving ourselves deliberately. And that's a dangerous position to take in relation to the world.

All we can do is be honest about this, and trust that what we think is true will continue to function as true when we act on it.
 

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
..but to say that THEY are the "epitome" here of moral behavior as if that if it was upto "them" then we wouldn't have this issue and / or be able to resolve it.... is a very serious case of head-in-sand.
I never said that .. people should pay more attention to their religion,
and should not argue against climate-change for worldly benefit. It is hypocrisy, imo.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
We can't possibly know how what we don't know now would alter what we think is true, now, were we to come to know it. And we clearly do not know all. So we cannot possibly (logically) be certain that what we currently think is true or false, is true or false. And to just blindly pretend otherwise would be both illogical and dishonest. We would be deceiving ourselves deliberately. And that's a dangerous position to take in relation to the world.

All we can do is be honest about this, and trust that what we think is true will continue to function as true when we act on it.

Again, no.

I believe it was Lawrence Krauss that once said the following:

"Science is not in the business of proving things. In fact, you could say that science is rather in the business of disproving things".

What that means, is that science can't tell you what is "absolutely true", but it certainly can tell you what is "absolutely false".

The myths under discussion here are stories that make testable predictions. And when tested, if the predictions don't check out, then we can say with certainty that the claims are false. Because that's how you disprove claims: you look at the testable predictions and then test those predictions. When those tests fail, it means the predictions are wrong and by extension, so is the model / claim from which the predictions flow.


I'll illustrate with a less controversial (for this audience, anyway) example to drive that point home...

Suppose I'm a suspect in a murder case. I claim to have an alibi.
Say the murder took place in Brussels at noon on the third of april.
I claim that I was in Paris that whole day on a business trip and I say that my wife can confirm that, since I told her and that I also talked to her on the phone while in Paris. They interrogate my wife to confirm this story and she confirms it that I left very early in the morning by car (it's a 4 hour drive) and told her I had to go to Paris for work and that we indeed talked on the phone during the day.

So far, so good, right?

Now they check my phone records and sure enough, there are a few calls between me and my wife.
Here's the kicker: in phone records, they can track where the signal came from. If location services on my phone are up, my phone itself also has a trace of where I was. They check both and as it turns out, I was in fact in Brussels at the time of the calls.

Result: my claims have just been disproven. I was not in Paris. My phone, which I used to call my wife, was in Brussels. So so was I.
My claims have just been exposed as being lies to the detectives as well as my wife.

My claims made testable predictions: my phone signal and location services should be traced to Paris during that day.
When tested, it turns out this isn't the case. So the predictions are false. By extension, so is the claim from which the predictions followed.




So, in summary: yes, we can very very much know when a claim is "absolutely false" if and when the testable predictions are shown to fail.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Again, no.

I believe it was Lawrence Krauss that once said the following:

"Science is not in the business of proving things. In fact, you could say that science is rather in the business of disproving things".

What that means, is that science can't tell you what is "absolutely true", but it certainly can tell you what is "absolutely false".

The myths under discussion here are stories that make testable predictions. And when tested, if the predictions don't check out, then we can say with certainty that the claims are false. Because that's how you disprove claims: you look at the testable predictions and then test those predictions. When those tests fail, it means the predictions are wrong and by extension, so is the model / claim from which the predictions flow.


I'll illustrate with a less controversial (for this audience, anyway) example to drive that point home...

Suppose I'm a suspect in a murder case. I claim to have an alibi.
Say the murder took place in Brussels at noon on the third of april.
I claim that I was in Paris that whole day on a business trip and I say that my wife can confirm that, since I told her and that I also talked to her on the phone while in Paris. They interrogate my wife to confirm this story and she confirms it that I left very early in the morning by car (it's a 4 hour drive) and told her I had to go to Paris for work and that we indeed talked on the phone during the day.

So far, so good, right?

Now they check my phone records and sure enough, there are a few calls between me and my wife.
Here's the kicker: in phone records, they can track where the signal came from. If location services on my phone are up, my phone itself also has a trace of where I was. They check both and as it turns out, I was in fact in Brussels at the time of the calls.

Result: my claims have just been disproven. I was not in Paris. My phone, which I used to call my wife, was in Brussels. So so was I.
My claims have just been exposed as being lies to the detectives as well as my wife.

My claims made testable predictions: my phone signal and location services should be traced to Paris during that day.
When tested, it turns out this isn't the case. So the predictions are false. By extension, so is the claim from which the predictions followed.




So, in summary: yes, we can very very much know when a claim is "absolutely false" if and when the testable predictions are shown to fail.
Science neither proves nor disproves any theory true or false. All it does is determine whether a theory predicts physical results within a very narrow set of parameters. All theories in science remain theories. They are never determined to be true or false beyond their ability to predict results within the very narrow set of parameters within which were tested them.

This is very far from establishing any absolute truth or untruth.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Science neither proves nor disproves any theory true or false.

I have JUST explained to you how science absolutely CAN disprove claims / hypothesis / theories.

In one ear, out the other??

All it does is determine whether a theory predicts physical results within a very narrow set of parameters. All theories in science remain theories. They are never determined to be true or false beyond their ability to predict results within the very narrow set of parameters within which were tested them.

This is very far from establishing any absolute truth or untruth.

You are replying to a post where I explain in detail how science isn't in the business of proving things, but rather in the business of disproving things.

It's like you didn't read it at all.

Once more:

- Claim X is made
- From claim X flows testable prediction A
==> meaning: if A checks out, then this supports X (not "proves" - instead, "supports"). If A does NOT check out, then this disproves X.


Claim: the whole world was flooded a couple thousand years ago and ALL LIFE except a handful of breeding pairs of each species died.
Testable predictions flowing from this claim:
- a global layer of flood sediment dated to a couple thousand years ago
- a genetic bottleneck in ALL SPECIES which can be dated to roughly the same period as the flood sediment.

Upon investigation: neither the flood sediment OR the genetic bottlenecks even exist. There's nothing there to even date to see if it matches.

Conclusion: claim is disproven.

Period. End of story.


It's that simple.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
This illustrates the special pleading that goes on in religious thinking. This thread advocates for a type of evidence that is unreliable and questionable, and when explanations from science are provided as a rebuttal to bad religious conclusions only then do believers demand evidence. Of course this request is often honored with the science and evidence only to be rejected.
I believe that is because science is out of its element and tends to go bonkers with concepts it is not equipped to deal with.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
As I told you before...claims made in the Bible are not evidence for the said claims. You have not yet presented any evidence regarding the historicity of the Biblical chronology upto Adam. Maybe your memory is failing you?
I believe you can't simply arbitrarily say that the Bible isn't evidence. What evidence do you have to support that view?
 
Top