Is there a good reason to believe in the untestable?

[McCulloch]

I agree that God is not testable by scientific methodology. That is the failure of science in that is is unable to test Spirit. That, to me, does not mean God is not fact. It just means he is not testable by those methods. Those who require evidence for faith want the testable scientific God, or so they say. As a philosophy major I would question any educational organization that exempts philosophizing about God. Many Greek philosophers did.

Is there a good reason to believe that an untestable proposition is true?

[servant]

I would also like to correct what I said about if you are not truly looking for answers it does not really mattering much. I think it does matter. Don't ask me to explain why I think it does matter it just does to me. I have a hard time thinking that anyone, including me, could be wrong on the biggest thing we will all experience. Death!

So we invent god to give us a chance of eternal life. The strength of our belief is matched by our terror of death. Billions of people have been, and continue to be, frightened into religion. That's a sorry state of affairs.

You know Dragon you would think that man could invent a better God than you say we did. You use the word "Terror". Maybe some feel like like that, I don't. I am kind of looking forward to death. No more waking up early, no more tears, no more back aches, etc..... I mean I am assuming none of us here on this forum has died and came back so how do we know what death brings. Right now it's impossible to validate what death brings without some faith. I have faith in eternal life and you have faith there's not. Maybe one day science will be able to bring people back to life after death and tell us, but I am not holding my breath.

Until we can see the reality of death first hand we will never completely understand it. You can ignore death but it keeps pressing onward, you can get mad at death but it keeps calling, you can hope death brings no pain but you are just guessing. I don't think anyone should feel bad about being scared of death. I mean most people are scared even those who believe in no afterlife. I know from experience all people are scared when death is facing them head on. It's a natural emotion.

[bernee51]

Tell me...how do you know that the situation described by Hawking (collapsing universe) has not happened an infinite number of times prior to this one that didn't. How do you know it is not still occurring now?

Now that's some serious faith.

Starting out with a logical fallacy is not a good look.

Do you disagree with the majority of scientist that the Big Bang happened?

Not at all. The Big Bang may be the first evidence off the universe as we know it.

You cannot get something from nothing.

Because you say so...or do you have something to back up this opinion.

Time and all the Universal Laws we have started at one point, there was nothing before, at least the scientist cannot find anything.

Time is a human concept. Without us to observe it would not exist. I view (but do not have faith in ) the universe as we se it as emergent. An unending flow of 'nows' - eternal. The universe, in some shape or form, has always existed.

You are taking a great leap of faith in saying there "might" be a infinite number of times it collapsed before this one worked out.

Not at all - as others have pointed out

Why? The only reason I can see is you not only don't believe in the possibility of God but you seem like you Hate the idea of God.

In all my posts on this forum I have not mentioned the word or concept of hate in a subjective sense. Why is it that it always seems to be 'people of faith' that introduce the concept of hate.

Why would I hate the idea of god?

Oh and by the way, we can be pretty sure that it's still not occuring because we are here right now.

How can you judge? It could happen in a 'now'. How long is a 'now'? It may helop your understanding if you were to try to get out of this anthropocentric view of existence.

[bernee51]

I would also like to correct what I said about if you are not truly looking for answers it does not really mattering much. I think it does matter. Don't ask me to explain why I think it does matter it just does to me. I have a hard time thinking that anyone, including me, could be wrong on the biggest thing we will all experience. Death!

So we invent god to give us a chance of eternal life. The strength of our belief is matched by our terror of death. Billions of people have been, and continue to be, frightened into religion. That's a sorry state of affairs.

You know Dragon you would think that man could invent a better God than you say we did.

Perhaps we are not finished yet. Based on human history, god is a work in progress.

Maybe some feel like like that, I don't. I am kind of looking forward to death. No more waking up early, no more tears, no more back aches, etc.....

What...and miss all those opportunities to learn....

Right now it's impossible to validate what death brings without some faith. I have faith in eternal life and you have faith there's not.

You obviously did not read my summation of your tendency to equivocate over the word 'faith'. How can not believing there is an 'afterlife' be construed as 'faith'.

A question...where were you during the eternal 'before birth'?

...you can hope death brings no pain but you are just guessing.

Dying may bring pain. Death I don't think so.

I know from experience all people are scared when death is facing them head on. It's a natural emotion.

How do you know this?

[QED]

How do you believe we came into existense if not by God? Do you believe we are a product of pure chance? How did all of matter, ever come about? How do you think the universe came to be also?

Get ready Chaplinsky their theories are a religion of there own.

Even if you could justify your comment here, who's to say which religion we should turn to for the truth about our origins?

Chaplinsky asks how we could come to exist if not by God. Of course we can bundle-up all the various processes that have resulted in our existence and label them "God", but it doesn't automatically follow that this "God" bears any similarities with any popular concept of the divine. In order to understand the problem here, we need to focus on intent.

I've asked why we should automatically see our universe, our existence, as intentional products. The only firm statement of this is written in the Bible. Turning to the observational and testable, as far as I can see, we have no unambiguous indication of intent. I think creationists should treat this as their key challenge. If intent can be demonstrated, belief in God would be totally justified.

Likewise, there are many more possibilities for the apparent tailoring of our universe than the one that suits their particular philosophy.

I agree completely but I am not the one saying there are no possibilities except God. I just personally I owe it to myself to look at all the possibilities and closing myself off to something because reason, logic or science says other wise would be foolish. There are plenty of examples of people who have thought they had the answers but it turned out they were wrong.

But this is territory that you surely cannot dare to enter. I read you as saying "I'm prepared to listen to your arguments, but the moment I see the logic in your point about ambiguity -- I'll fall back on my faith thank-you". That should be the banner that all religions clearly display. But in asking rhetorical questions like Chaplinsky's, which has echo's of David saying "Only the fool hath said in his heart, There is no God!" and Paul citing creation as unmistakable evidence of a creator, believers in God are failing to acknowledge their faith as the tie-breaker.

Forget all about hard-headed atheism. Consider the position of someone who is not satisfied with the hearsay nature of evidence presented by the bible, and who appreciates the comprehensive capacity for self-organisation in nature. What good reasons are there to believe in the untestable assertions that an intentional agent created us?

If you can not see it, I can not explain it. The start of the Universe points to some Intentional agent (as you say it).

So you keep telling me -- but why does it only point to this thing? We don't point to spontaneous events like radioactive decay and say this must be intentional. It's almost as if you're unfamiliar with the concept of things being unintentional. Maybe you have a philosophy that all things are intentional? The church might well have taught that up until the time when they started fitting lightning conductors to their steeples. No, I think you'll have to concede that events can be divided into two categories: intentional and unintentional. Once these categories have been established we should then be prepared to justify why we place things in one category rather than the other.

Of course people who say (NO NO NO GOD NO NO NO) things are only true if it's within our understanding of what we know based on reason, science and logic, blah-blah-blah..

The intentional agent you call God could easily be validated by all the "intelectual blahs" under the right conditions. The "blahs" are essentially the testing of ideas in peoples minds against the immutable facts of the world. We've only to refer to "concrete" when speaking of reality to remind ourselves that there is an external world which is unbending to our hopes and wishes. I could also have said indifferent if I had wanted to invite a debate about miracles.

...If it points to something outside what we consider to be reality then lets (THROW IT OUT) it's no good. There has to be another reason, multiple universes, etc... I mean is that even real science or some modern day Atheist camp.

You obviously don't keep much of an eye on cosmology which, incidentally, has only relatively recently become an experimental science. I think what you'd like to say is that good indicators have been found for God in the apparent fine-tuning of the recipe for our universe. But these indicators are genuinely beset with ambiguity and until you understand why this is so, you may get the impression that things are being invented to "explain away" some more obvious conclusion.

Now I admit that most (by a small margin) scientist do not believe in God,

That's a very interesting statistic, and an admirable admission. I'll resist the temptation to get into the mind that produced it.

but there are a lot that do. What are we to do, disregard all who think it might be possible with our limited knowledge to think there might be a God. I don't think this would be wise if your truly looking for answers. If you are not, well it does not really matter then does it?

Why are creationists so determined to ignore the ambiguity that confronts us here? Faith is one mechanism for coping with ambiguities, investigation is another. Truth represents the resolution of ambiguity, but if you won't even acknowledge the ambiguity when it's been clearly presented to you, how can anyone take your belief seriously?

[servant]

servant wrote:

I know from experience all people are scared when death is facing them head on. It's a natural emotion.

How do you know this?

I admit that "all" I cannot know. I am a trained skydive instructor with over 1000 plus skydives. I've seen them all. Atheist, Agnostic and Religious people at 14,000 feet about to jump out of a good running aircraft. Fear! Believe me it's a natural emotion. Death is breathing on their face, the only thing that separates them from this life and the next (or whatever you guys call it) is a parachute. Whether we believe in the afterlife or not, every human has the will to live. I know, I know it's evolution. I don't completely disagree here I just think this will to survive has a bigger meaning.

Why are creationists so determined to ignore the ambiguity that confronts us here? Faith is one mechanism for coping with ambiguities, investigation is another. Truth represents the resolution of ambiguity, but if you won't even acknowledge the ambiguity when it's been clearly presented to you, how can anyone take your belief seriously?

I am sorry QED I don't see what is unclear or vague here. I think we can agree science does not have all the answers. Since science has not figured out all there is to know, it could be possible that there is a Designer.

How can not believing there is an 'afterlife' be construed as 'faith'.

It's easy:

Webster's New World Dictionary:

faith: 3. complete trust or confidence

Have you been dead from the life you know? Explain the experience?

[bernee51]

servant wrote:

I know from experience all people are scared when death is facing them head on. It's a natural emotion.

How do you know this?

I admit that "all" I cannot know. I am a trained skydive instructor with over 1000 plus skydives. I've seen them all. Atheist, Agnostic and Religious people at 14,000 feet about to jump out of a good running aircraft. Fear! Believe me it's a natural emotion.

What a coincidence. I did around 600 jumps and was also a licensed instructor. I competed in rel comps nationally and internationally. This was in the early 70's when parachutes weren't kites.



Perhaps the anticipation I felt before a jump was fear but it was usually well hidden behind the adrenalin. With students the fear was usually more apparent on the second jump.

Death is breathing on their face, the only thing that separates them from this life and the next (or whatever you guys call it) is a parachute. Whether we believe in the afterlife or not, every human has the will to live. I know, I know it's evolution. I don't completely disagree here I just think this will to survive has a bigger meaning.

I don't deny the will to live...it was that which made skydiving the 'most fun you can have with your pants on'.

How can not believing there is an 'afterlife' be construed as 'faith'.

It's easy:

Webster's New World Dictionary:

faith: 3. complete trust or confidence

And here I was thinking you were talking about ...

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion

This is what I mean by equivocation.

You wish to compare 'religious' faith with 'secular' trust and confidence.

This is usually done to attempt to show that everybody has 'faith' in something. If so there is nothing untoward about 'faith' in the existence of an unproved and unprovable invisible super being and its interactions with humans.

I see that sort of equivocation as 'bad faith'

Have you been dead from the life you know? Explain the experience?

Not yet but I have been close. What is it - 1000 feet is about 5 secs? Although I have probably been closer on motorcycles.

Why do i not believe in any afterlife and that when we die we die there is 'nothing'. From observation it seems to be the fate of every living being. An understanding of the nature of being established through seeking jnana (knowledge), meditation and self inquiry confirms these observations. I can see no reason why this body that is nothing more than a vehicle for consciousness will, when the biochemical/mechanical functions cease, become worm food and consciousness disappear like a candle in the wind.

What will survive is whatever contribution I have made to spirit.

[QED]

Why are creationists so determined to ignore the ambiguity that confronts us here? Faith is one mechanism for coping with ambiguities, investigation is another. Truth represents the resolution of ambiguity, but if you won't even acknowledge the ambiguity when it's been clearly presented to you, how can anyone take your belief seriously?

I am sorry QED I don't see what is unclear or vague here. I think we can agree science does not have all the answers. Since science has not figured out all there is to know, it could be possible that there is a Designer.

Yes, we most certainly can agree that science does not have all the answers and that it is possible that the universe is a product of intentional design. But show me where the acknowledgement of the other possibility is in the creationists mindset. The creationist uses the supposed creation itself as evidence of a creator God without stopping to tell us how they know this God to be a sentient, intentional agent -- one that resembles the God depicted by their own cultural heritage.

The ambiguity of whether or not the universe was the product of intent should be very clear by now. Equivocation between the popular concept of a creator God and whatever process it was that resulted in our universe could all to easily mislead us into believing that the supposed creation is evidence of one of the many "creators" people have been worshipping -- presumably even before recorded history. To these early minds, anthropocentric explanations were the only kind available -- modelling everything on the familiar lines of human interaction.

Never mind the voices of strong atheism that tell you there is no God, no afterlife etc. Now that "spiritual" Physicists like Paul Davies and John Barrow have popularised the various flavours of the Anthropic Principle (as attributed to Brendan Carter) we have no excuse for carrying on as though creation was evidence of a particular kind of God, and you probably won't see what is unclear or vague here until you've understood this issue in an even-handed way as well.

[Dragon]

To these early minds, anthropocentric explanations were the only kind available -- modelling everything on the familiar lines of human interaction.

Yes, it's hard to escape the conclusion that contemporary belief hasn't moved on from these primitive, simplistic ideas about how we all 'got here'.

[servant]

QED:

I hope you find what your looking for. Thanks for admitting in the possibility of a ID. I can not answer for all the creationist out there about intent and why such a being would will us into existence. I personally think it's Love but I am some what bias because I hold the Bible up as the Word of God and a good source of historical information. Maybe I am simple that way. If there turns out to be a God maybe He won't just let the smart people in or I might be out of luck.

I cannot ignore the truth inside me that is yelling that there is a God. I wish sometimes I did not believe in God but my being (soul) screams there is. I would just say, hey I was raised in a Christian home in a Christian nation and I've been brain washed, but something inside me says I would still know. My person would still be longing for some kind of meaning, some kind of purpose. No I chose to believe in the untestable not because I have to or I've been dumbed down but because I see no hope anywhere else. To many people experience God to say it's all nonsense.

I will always be open to science but cannot believe that if God lives outside all our reality and the know universe He will be found. It would make no sense for Him to be found anyway. Trying to prove Him in our mind is useless so I do have faith (yes the religious kind and the secular kind), trust or confidence that He is there. I've personally experienced Him within the realm of my reality so I know Him.

Bernee51:

So glad to meet another NUT who likes to jump out of airplanes. I can assure you that the only reason you had "A" before your first jump and jumps after was the fear of death. The fear of death produced the "A". It's a will to survive.

McCulloch:

I know your watching this thread and like to get your hands on some good Apologetics books. I don't know if anyone has recommend Dr. Boyd's "Letters from a Skeptic" but it gives some great arguments. Of course Dinesh D'Souza "Whats so Great about Christianity" and Lee Strobel. Lee Strobel used to be an Atheist who says he found God. I've heard his books are good but have not read any.

D'Douza

Boyd

Strobel

Good luck all in your quest for truth. May you find everything your hearts are looking for. Happy Holidays and a very BIG Merry Christmas.

[QED]

Thanks for admitting in the possibility of a ID.

No problem. If we found a "2001" style monolith digitally inscribed with the genome of the first bacterial cell that enriched the atmosphere with oxygen we would have little doubt that all of life on Earth had been ID'd to evolve the way it has. We can roll this back to the entire universe as well. Like adopted children trying to find out who their parents were, we have a natural interest in our origins. But there are many potential levels from which we can be removed. If life on Earth was the product of eetee engineering how would this affect out supposed relation with God? I just don't know where to get started with these kinds of fantasy.

I can not answer for all the creationist out there about intent and why such a being would will us into existence. I personally think it's Love but I am some what bias because I hold the Bible up as the Word of God and a good source of historical information.

You're getting way ahead of me here -- I've not got as far as asking how we know what the intent is -- I'm still asking how we know that there is indeed intent involved in our existence. I've been trying to explain why our existence alone is insufficient to determine intent.

Maybe I am simple that way. If there turns out to be a God maybe He won't just let the smart people in or I might be out of luck.

You're clearly into the advanced stages of "what if" if you're worried about "getting in" on something. This must be another one of those "deep inside" things as you seem to be admitting the possibility of brain-washing. Does it not concern you that, in the way that big corporations are out to get your money, religion is out to get your belief -- and they both have some clever devices to achieve their respective goals.

I cannot ignore the truth inside me that is yelling that there is a God. I wish sometimes I did not believe in God but my being (soul) screams there is. I would just say, hey I was raised in a Christian home in a Christian nation and I've been brain washed, but something inside me says I would still know. My person would still be longing for some kind of meaning, some kind of purpose. No I chose to believe in the untestable not because I have to or I've been dumbed down but because I see no hope anywhere else. To many people experience God to say it's all nonsense.

Sure, there's a common experience -- but there's far more uncommon detail that distinguishes the different world religions. It could only be a peculiar quirk of Geography that resulted in you happening to latch on to the one true set of details. The way this makes it look from the outside is that humans share a common perceptual artefact (a habit of thinking in terms of being Fathered) rather than recieving a real external signal from the divine. Thus they make-up the details for themselves (well, by regional committee at any rate).

I will always be open to science but cannot believe that if God lives outside all our reality and the know universe He will be found. It would make no sense for Him to be found anyway. Trying to prove Him in our mind is useless so I do have faith (yes the religious kind and the secular kind), trust or confidence that He is there. I've personally experienced Him within the realm of my reality so I know Him.

Just so long as people don't continue to insist that an apparent creation is evidence of a creator, then they're welcome to their faith.