Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 2796:

I like your straightforward approach to this question and I respect your opinion.

I 'preciate that. I admit I'm an amateur at all things 'cept dooficity, and I'm as apt to be wrong as I am to be handsome. I hope our exchange(s) may better inform others. Best I can tell, I see nothing about your position that lacks considered thought and sincerity.

I am sure that many people with religious beliefs would not like to describe their strongly held beliefs as metaphysics. That is why I consider it the middle ground between science and religion.

Let's try to lock down a mutal definition for metaphysics. I offer the following as a starting point. You will of course add or subtract at your pleasure...

1a (1) : a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology

(2) : ontology 2

b : abstract philosophical studies : a study of what is outside objective experience

I'm scared to try to format that to the better, 'cause I can't much tell where one needs to end, and the other'n oughta start.

Along with that, we have...

1: a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being
2: a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of things that have existence

Please refer to the links if I seem to have misrepresented here.

If you would please, accept, decline, or modify these definitions, and maybe expound on your take on 'em. I don't play "gotcha", so if we disagree on these terms, we'll work 'em out before too much carryin' on.

You attempt to create a difference here. It goes like this.

1) I find religious "discovery" to most often involve inserting a god where an absence of any other explanation is available

2) Science will place such a lack into the "beats me, but let's keep a-lookin'" category

I added the 1 and the 2 there, to show they are direct quotes I presented.

The only difference here is one calling it God and the other putting it in the things to do pile, if you pardon my humour.

That's how I see it, barring our discussion (above) regarding definitions.

...
Science talks about discovery and paths and processes towards greater understanding and religious people talk about moving towards a proper awareness of reality. These two human pursuits are more same than different.

I'm not sure if I dig this angle. Yes, science talks about greater understanding. I dare say religion seeks the same.

My issue here though, is the implication that religious people are the only ones moving t'wards "proper awareness of reality".

Does science not seek a "proper awareness of reality"? Why is it you would ascribe one trait to science, and a rather whole 'nother'n (if 'similar') to religion?

I propose there is this gulf here... Some, many, a few, maybe you, there's some out there I swear, but there's religious folk who think in terms of what is "proper" reality, the scientist thinks in terms of "well dang if it ain't" reality.

Is it not "proper" to consider reality as it is, as we find it, rather than as we think it must be if it's to be "proper"? "Proper" here is too subjective, dontcha think?

Or is it that I'm now doing to you, what I get onto you up above about

I think not. But some'll tell ya I got me a faulty thinker

They are speculative, cognitive and on going and each uses techniques that are peculiar to themselves.

Plenty fair. I will contend science does a much better job of it.

Thank You for your response here.

And I 'preciate what schooling you can offer the others of us here.

[zeromeansnothing]

re Far Wanderer post2799--Understanding oneself does not require prayer. I mean, it certainly can be employed in the process, but in terms of it's function in understanding oneself, how is it any different from secular introspection?

Prayer is not for everyone but it cannot be dismissed as you rightly state. It is different to secular introspection in its very nature. It is religious. It searches for a clarity within the accepted presence of a God. You keep producing excellent thread topics that would take the assembled forum many months to explore thoroughly.

[olavisjo]

.

Let me ask, why do you suppose God created 500,000 to 750,000 different species of beetles? One species of man was apparently sufficient for God's purposes, but beetles? He really must have had a [strike]hard on[/strike] thing for beetles.

I think that I share his love for beetles...

[youtube][/youtube]
I don't see how too many beetles is a problem.

I have a hard time believing you are serious about this line of argument. Are you seriously contending that the variation of the species occurs because of divine intervention? Really?

You are talking to someone who believes that everything happens because of divine intervention.

[Sir Hamilton]

I was putting into perspective how much more abysmally small the group of humans are who are atheist compared to those who are theist. You dismiss about 98 percent of the population of the world in favor of your 2 percent. Then you use the same logic by pointing out 93 percent of "scientists" don't believe in a personal god as a valid reason to not believe the 7 percent that do. You appeal to the authority of scientists that support the beliefs of atheism, abiogenesis, and evolution of man. You haven't made any of these so called discoveries or witnessed any of these discoveries...you just believe them because they claim to be an expert. My whole point is we all appeal to authority and it is amusing that you hate to admit that simple fact.

The point you miss by a thousand miles is that we are talking about a question of science when it comes to the age of the Earth and evolution.

Your argument is like asking the opinion of of a bunch of fast food workers about what should be done about a dentistry problem or more to the point, how to conduct neurosurgery on the brain.

We don't have a popular vote about how to launch a rocket into space, and we don't ask your average 8th grader about questions of cosmology, geology or evolutionary biology.

We are not discussing rocket science. You go and ask scientists with their biased imperfect brains what their opinions are on the data that they gather and if you like it you just accept what they say based on faith. Way to go there.

[Danmark]

.

Let me ask, why do you suppose God created 500,000 to 750,000 different species of beetles? One species of man was apparently sufficient for God's purposes, but beetles? He really must have had a [strike]hard on[/strike] thing for beetles.

I think that I share his love for beetles...

[youtube][/youtube]
I don't see how too many beetles is a problem.

I have a hard time believing you are serious about this line of argument. Are you seriously contending that the variation of the species occurs because of divine intervention? Really?

You are talking to someone who believes that everything happens because of divine intervention.

And you are talking to someone who thinks nothing happens for a reason; that life just 'is.' But that doesn't mean that we can't both have fun.

I'll pretend that I'm kissing
The lips I am missing
And hope that my dreams will come true
And then while I'm away
I'll write home every day
And I'll send all my loving to you

Loved the early Beatles. I was in high school when they burst on the American scene.

[zeromeansnothing]

re Danmark Post2800 --In the first paragraph you treat 'metaphysics' and 'religious belief' as the same thing and also as different from each other.

This is the paragraph to which the above comment refers. zeromeansnothing states


I am sure that many people with religious beliefs would not like to describe their strongly held beliefs as metaphysics. That is why I consider it the middle ground between science and religion

?

Surely two sides will converge to a middle ground especially if there is continuity and commonality between both sides which is exactly my point. Significant aspects of both science and religion converge towards a metaphysical centre of sameness.

metaphysical Merriam-Webster Dictionary You can use any of these definitions.

: of or relating to things that are thought to exist but that cannot be seen
: of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses
: highly abstract or abstruse; also : theoretical etc etc.


There is no confusion on my part here, Danmark. I state that Scientific Endeavour and Religion are both metaphysical pursuits with more commonality than difference.

[zeromeansnothing]

re JoeyKnothead Post2796

Your post was full of deep understanding. It is amazing that we both used the same dictionary and yet managed to come up with different twists to metaphysics. Sir Hamilton stated that this happens constantly when we communicate with each other.

With reference to your query regarding the use of words such as proper and greater in the following you rightly pointed out that these are interchangeable and are again subjective twists. In other words, these two paragraphs are basically, the same

Science talks about discovery and paths and processes towards greater understanding and religious people talk about moving towards a proper awareness of reality. These two human pursuits are more same than different.

Science talks about discovery and paths and processes towards proper understanding and religious people talk about moving towards a greater awareness of reality. These two human pursuits are more same than different.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 2810:

Your post was full of deep understanding.

That's 'cause I got a pretty girl I like to fancy 'bout

It is amazing that we both used the same dictionary and yet managed to come up with different twists to metaphysics.

Then I ask you to please explain where our definitions go astray. I'll tell ya now, I don't cotton to evasive tactics designed to confuse folks. Tell it straight, tell it true.

Sir Hamilton stated that this happens constantly when we communicate with each other.

I don't care if Sir Hamilton dies in a fire of his own making. My conversation is with you.

With reference to your query regarding the use of words such as proper and greater in the following you rightly pointed out that these are interchangeable and are again subjective twists. In other words, these two paragraphs are basically, the same

C'mon man, define these terms. Put your definition up. To scrutiny. To reason.

Science talks about discovery and paths and processes towards greater understanding and religious people talk about moving towards a proper awareness of reality. These two human pursuits are more same than different.

Science talks about discovery and paths and processes towards proper understanding and religious people talk about moving towards a greater awareness of reality. These two human pursuits are more same than different.

I wanna love ya man. Ya give me no reason to do it.

You mish and mash words to hope you can get you some God into it. Science is indifferent to God. But just as soon as God shows up, sciecne'll be all, "Sonofabiscuit, there you sit!"

[dianaiad]

I have suggested that this thread attempts to create a fictitious division between two metaphysical approaches to understanding our existence.

There's nothing 'fictitious' about the staggering gulf between science and superstition, between astronomy and astrology, between mathematics and malarkey. You might just as well claim the divide between cosmology and cosmetology is fictitious.

The bolded part made me LOL.

Good points.

Moderator Comment

One line (or in this case, two) comments which do nothing but agree/disagree with the post do not advance the conversation. Please expand your comments, or use the token system to show your approval.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[FarWanderer]

re Far Wanderer post2799--Understanding oneself does not require prayer. I mean, it certainly can be employed in the process, but in terms of it's function in understanding oneself, how is it any different from secular introspection?

Prayer is not for everyone but it cannot be dismissed as you rightly state. It is different to secular introspection in its very nature. It is religious. It searches for a clarity within the accepted presence of a God. You keep producing excellent thread topics that would take the assembled forum many months to explore thoroughly.

Of course prayer is religious and thoughtful introspection is religion-neutral. I understand that quite well. I was referring to their respective functions being the same (in this context the function being "understanding oneself").

I'm asking: what can we learn from religious "techniques" that we can't learn through scientific techniques? And vice versa. And why?