A question to the non christians

[nthdimension]

Prayer, but as you are not prepared to do that test you cannot confirm the result. I have a test for you, but first you must believe in the existence of God as you believe in the existence of the atom. Are you prepared to do the test?

I can confirm that prayer does not work. It uniformly failed me and has failed empirical testing by others.

I don't need to believe in the atom for someone to demonstrate it exists. Any test you suggest cannot require an initial belief in what you are trying to prove. Let's hear the test anyway?

 

[fivelza]

That has belief as a prerequisite. If you have the faith you see the evidence. Not the same thing as an empirical test. I can make children with absolutely no belief in the theory that putting a sperm and egg together will make a baby. In fact fervent disbelief in that theory is definitely not a reliable way to prevent pregnancy. True evidence for a god will be that evidence that reliably convinces those who disbelieve.

Fair enough, but God is not only there for those who disbelieve, He is there for those who are searching.

I can confirm that prayer does not work. It uniformly failed me and has failed empirical testing by others.

And to that I can bring you many for which prayer has worked.

 

[kilo39]

It might be difficult to observe, but you can repeatedly test and confirm the results empirically. How does one test and confirm the actions of God?

The religionists will tell you that there is no reason to test for god: god is inherent within the universe and every (scientific) test is a confirmation of god. The religionists will tell you that you cannot separate God from the test: the test is a confirmation of god (otherwise there would be no test.)

To put it another way: what is the inherent makeup of the universe that allows you to do the test in the first place?

Regarding science: a test for god will fail but to arrive at a test means a greater understanding (or quest to understand.) IOW through scientific history better instrumentation has been invented to do tests. If machinery need be invented (or process) then previous to that there was no understanding or test. Therefore 'at this time' the machinery or the test doesn't exist but that does not deny or refute the existence of God.

 

[fivelza]

The religionists will tell you that there is no reason to test for god: god is inherent within the universe and every (scientific) test is a confirmation of god. The religionists will tell you that you cannot separate God from the test: the test is a confirmation of god (otherwise there would be no test.)

To put it another way: what is the inherent makeup of the universe that allows you to do the test in the first place?

Regarding science: a test for god will fail but to arrive at a test means a greater understanding (or quest to understand.) IOW through scientific history better instrumentation has been invented to do tests. If machinery need be invented (or process) then previous to that there was no understanding or test. Therefore 'at this time' the machinery or the test doesn't exist but that does not deny or refute the existence of God.

If there was a test that proved God existed, would those who don't believe end up believing and vice versa?

 

[Highflyer_GP]

If there was a test that proved God existed, would those who don't believe end up believing and vice versa?

I think that we can make a reasonable assumption that if such a test could confirm his existence, the non-believers would start believing. However if the very same test (using the same equipment) proved that he didn't exist, it still wouldn't sway the minds of the believers?

 

[kilo39]

I think that we can make a reasonable assumption that if such a test could confirm his existence, the non-believers would start believing. However if the very same test (using the same equipment) proved that he didn't exist, it still wouldn't sway the minds of the believers?

No it doesn't work that way. IOW the closer we arrive at instrumentation to test for God means the closer we arrive to God. At the point we can test for God, and have it confirmed we will be God.

 

[Myrrdin]

Sure, I'm open-minded

However I must add that I used to be very religious and put lots of faith and belief into my religion and God, however prayer failed me dismally in my time of need. But I'm willing to listen to the test and try it.

I like it that you say that. Here is the test but like any scientific experiment you must accept the results, whether those be the results you expect or not because that is the basis of scientific experimentation. To not anticipate the result but to accept the outcome.

I want you to think of a particular hard situation you have in your life currently, not necessarily a problem but something which is troubling you. This has to be something personal, dont pick world peace or some vain unattainable benevolance. This must be something very personal and private. Then think about it, in detail, whenever you feel you have thought it through thoroughly and understand all the aspects of the problem I want you to go into a subservient position whatever that might be for you and I want you to pray. Don't follow any dogma you have learnt in church, speak to Him from your heart and ask Him for His help in this matter. When you are done I want you to take your bible and randomly open it to a place, any place and read the chapter it opens at. Apply that chapter to the question you have.

Repeat above as many times as you want. You can tell us the result if you so desire or not, that I leave up to you.

 

[supersunbird]

yep, it wouldn't sway the believer if the test failed.

Anyway, one doesn't "believe' in science, its just there, a book falls to the earth because of gravity, you can measure the speed and everything else accurately and repeat the test accurately with the same results, you can see it, it is there.

 

[Highflyer_GP]

Myrrdin: will try it and report back on this particular issue in a couple of days as I don't want to rush the issue but rather try to verify the result by repeated testing.

 

[kilo39]

I want you to think of a particular hard situation you have in your life currently, not necessarily a problem but something which is troubling you. This has to be something personal, dont pick world peace or some vain unattainable benevolance. This must be something very personal and private. Then think about it, in detail, whenever you feel you have thought it through thoroughly and understand all the aspects of the problem I want you to go into a subservient position whatever that might be for you and I want you to pray. Don't follow any dogma you have learnt in church, speak to Him from your heart and ask Him for His help in this matter. When you are done I want you to take your bible and randomly open it to a place, any place and read the chapter it opens at. Apply that chapter to the question you have.

Repeat above as many times as you want. You can tell us the result if you so desire or not, that I leave up to you.

No man! Don't tell a person to do that. That is decidedly pagan. I have no problem with the method but not with the bible. Which part of the bible? (You could arrive at a part of the bible that tells you to give your daughters up for rape.)

If you want to use cosmological chance then use a decent book and one purposed for that, ie, the I Ching.

 

[nocilah]

For interest why do you choose 6000 years? Religion has been around for a lot longer than science. Science is an offshoot of religion in the sense that 'primitive peoples' created religion to "try and understand the world." Or rather supernatural forces were their only option in trying to explain the world and their place within it. In fact "religion" is a 'created' artifact: mans interaction with the world and nature has always had a cosmic dimension: it is the only way primitives could understand the world (disease etc) unseen forces greater than themselves.

Further Newton and the other great scientists (Copernicus or Galileo, whoever) were "religionists" before they were scientists. They became scientists in their thrust to understand 'the religious world.' Or rather the world of the spirit (the unseen forces that affect the lives of people.)

The more relevant question is: why do people have this relation to the world? Even the scientists on this thread; why do they bother at all. Where does the concept of god come from and how come it is so widespread.

Further bigger questions are why are we here in the first place, and why do the majority feel this compelling reason to seek an answer beyond themselves? Newton and the great scientists didn't become less religious: their science was an attempt for greater understanding of the world of god and the forces within it. God didn't give us brains to get stuck in dogma or tell one person their "religion" (or lack thereof) is inferior/superior to another.

The universe is. Why?

i chose 6000 because it kinda rolled off the keyboard easier then lets say 7000 years. But it could also be because the oldest religion is +/- 6000 years old.

Science and religion can coexist. But my point is religion has no need to progress where science in its nature will always progress.

so the two are very different from each other in nature. one requires physical results while the other requires spiritual results.

I dont think one is superior to the other because of this fundamental difference. It would be like saying the ocean is better then a lake? It's a personal preference.

And you are correct religion and science did coexist in the same breath for a long time, however in this day and age within a religious debate it always comes down to science hard cold cut facts vs religious faith and belief.

btw when man first created fire science was born.

 

[Highflyer_GP]

No it doesn't work that way. IOW the closer we arrive at instrumentation to test for God means the closer we arrive to God. At the point we can test for God, and have it confirmed we will be God.

I guess you could then say that the ultimate in human achievement would result in us being God, when we arrive at a point where we cannot progress any further and we have gained absolute knowledge.

However that's very much different to us following a God who some consider will always be superior to us no matter how far we progress.

 

[nocilah]

So I wonder how often have scientists started wars with those of opposing views?

sure. i doubt scientist have waged war but they certainly have helped war along (nukes ect). So i would not pin war on religion either.

 

[nocilah]

I don't need to believe in the atom for someone to demonstrate it exists.

you need to believe in the principles and the theories behind this science.

most modern science is filled with theories.

string theory

quantum theory

theory of relativity

ect

ect

they are theories albeit with alot more stone cold facts then lets say the theory of heaven and hell which becomes more a belief then a theory for some.

 

[Myrrdin]

Myrrdin: will try it and report back on this particular issue in a couple of days as I don't want to rush the issue but rather try to verify the result by repeated testing.

Done deal.

 

[Myrrdin]

No man! Don't tell a person to do that. That is decidedly pagan. I have no problem with the method but not with the bible. Which part of the bible? (You could arrive at a part of the bible that tells you to give your daughters up for rape.)

If you want to use cosmological chance then use a decent book and one purposed for that, ie, the I Ching.

Do it, dont do it. Are you going to argue with a scientist about the test he prescribes for testing the existence of the atom.

 

[Xarog]

For interest why do you choose 6000 years? Religion has been around for a lot longer than science. Science is an offshoot of religion in the sense that 'primitive peoples' created religion to "try and understand the world." Or rather supernatural forces were their only option in trying to explain the world and their place within it. In fact "religion" is a 'created' artifact: mans interaction with the world and nature has always had a cosmic dimension: it is the only way primitives could understand the world (disease etc) unseen forces greater than themselves.

Further Newton and the other great scientists (Copernicus or Galileo, whoever) were "religionists" before they were scientists. They became scientists in their thrust to understand 'the religious world.' Or rather the world of the spirit (the unseen forces that affect the lives of people.)

The more relevant question is: why do people have this relation to the world? Even the scientists on this thread; why do they bother at all. Where does the concept of god come from and how come it is so widespread.

Further bigger questions are why are we here in the first place, and why do the majority feel this compelling reason to seek an answer beyond themselves? Newton and the great scientists didn't become less religious: their science was an attempt for greater understanding of the world of god and the forces within it. God didn't give us brains to get stuck in dogma or tell one person their "religion" (or lack thereof) is inferior/superior to another.

The universe is. Why?

Religion and science are equally old. They're both schools of philosophy. Both have evolved over the millenia, and sometimes the two mixed.

 

[Xarog]

i chose 6000 because it kinda rolled off the keyboard easier then lets say 7000 years. But it could also be because the oldest religion is +/- 6000 years old.

Science and religion can coexist. But my point is religion has no need to progress where science in its nature will always progress.

so the two are very different from each other in nature. one requires physical results while the other requires spiritual results.

I dont think one is superior to the other because of this fundamental difference. It would be like saying the ocean is better then a lake? It's a personal preference.

And you are correct religion and science did coexist in the same breath for a long time, however in this day and age within a religious debate it always comes down to science hard cold cut facts vs religious faith and belief.

btw when man first created fire science was born.

Religion is much older than 6 000 years. People were writing in 5 000BC and by that time there were well established religions. Just because we don't have any written records of other religions doesn't mean they didn't exist.

But I agree with you about religion and science, and Kilo is also right to a degree. Religion tries to explain the supernatural, wheras Science tries to explain the natural.

Both make assumptions that cannot be proven.

 

[kilo39]

i chose 6000 because it kinda rolled off the keyboard easier then lets say 7000 years. But it could also be because the oldest religion is +/- 6000 years old.

No. Formal religion has been around for +/- 6000 years. Religion 'per-se' has been around ever since a conscious person/man first opened their eyes (and tried, seeked to understand the world around them: storms, disease, etc.) One could argue that the further people have travelled into the world of science the less their understanding of religion is, IOW, the first amoeba has no separation between the world of the known and the unknown. It is one (which is actually the base thrust of religion.)

But my point is religion has no need to progress where science in its nature will always progress.

Emphasis on Formal Religion. Religion has become a bastardised word: true religion is about encompassment (not being confined to some fixed dogma.)

btw when man first created fire science was born.

No. Fire was religion. It (science) is only far later when we began to differentiate the world (and in fact move further and further away from "true" religion.)

However that's very much different to us following a God who some consider will always be superior to us no matter how far we progress.

Yes (the religionists concepts are flawed.)

Done deal.

However I must add that I used to be very religious and put lots of faith and belief into my religion and God, however prayer failed me dismally in my time of need. But I'm willing to listen to the test and try it.

But now you are willing to take your chances on a flawed book? As said: use the correct method and tools, way beyond the dogma of a confined religion and philosophy (at least the way it is presented by the religionists.)

Do it, dont do it. Are you going to argue with a scientist about the test he prescribes for testing the existence of the atom.

Arrogance knows no bounds: who shall we blame for this? Your religion?

 

[Highflyer_GP]

But now you are willing to take your chances on a flawed book? As said: use the correct method and tools, way beyond the dogma of a confined religion and philosophy (at least the way it is presented by the religionists.)

I'm doing it to once again prove that no definitive answer can come of it, my stance on the subject hasn't changed.

If by some (unlikely) miracle something does happen, my stance still wouldn't change however I will begin to start asking even more questions.