Nobody is ever going to âproveâ the existence of God with science. People get so caught up in validating themselves as intellectual giants by talking about logic and philosophy, that they miss the big picture. They try to appreciate the beauty of life by looking through a microscope, and then when they canât see what they expect to see, they assume it doesnât exist. Imagine looking at a rose petal under a microscope. Or some skin cells of a beautiful woman. Or some hair strands of an infant or puppy. How can you see the life and beauty in it? You canât. It requires stepping back from the microscope and looking at the larger picture. Thatâs the point at which you can see many integrated parts working together to create life manifested as a rose, a woman or an infant. But most people have never really taken the broad view. Their view is limited to such a narrow scope that they canât see anything for how it truly presents itself. The problem with trying to accomplish anything with science, theories, etc is that it reverses the process by which we make sense of life. It makes knowledge and data the first step and then understanding and experience the second step. This makes being a human being totally ass backwards. It gets people caught in a loop whereby they refuse to see anything until theyâve somehow âprovenâ that they can see it in the first place. I mean, you canât âproveâ to me how a steak tastes by giving me a 500 page scientific dissertation on taste, taste buds, and the neurological happenings of the mind when someone eats a steak. The only thing that will âproveâ how steak tastes is to eat steak. But, science would teach us that, if by the end of reading that dissertation (step one), if one can't know what steak tastes like simply from reading â well, then it must be artificial and that man can only taste steak because he wants to in his own mind. Same thing with the color blue. You could spend the rest of your life reading about rods, cones, light waves, prisms and every other bit of science about the color âblueâ, but thatâs no substitute for actually looking at the sky and seeing it for yourself. You could NEVER get a blind man to understand âblueâ by teaching him science. Honestly â name one significant experience in your life that would have been as equally impacting if you had ONLY acquired the scientific knowledge about it. Can you understand how sex feels if youâve only read about it? Falling in love? Riding a roller coaster? Attending a funeral of a loved one? Eating a Snickers? I canât think of ONE thing in my life that could have made more sense through science, âproofâ, âlogicâ, etcâ¦than if I just saw/experienced it through my own human condition, faith and a heart without some kind of mental bias. Science is never going to âproveâ God. When a person goes that route, they feel vulnerable in matters of faith, the heart and soul. So they try to prepare themselves with âlogicâ and science. They try to build their lives upon an unshakeable foundation â thus eliminating the by-product of insecurity and vulnerability that so often comes with new experiences. People want to logically disprove God to alleviate the nagging insecurity about whether or not He exists. Theyâre tired of thinking about in bed at 2:30am â so they throw themselves into books and science because, supposedly, that will give the answer. Science is wonderful. But the truth is that people who make it a religion or a way of life are terrified inside. Theyâre terrified of their own vulnerability in regards to matters that require a personal investment above and beyond their knowledge base. When I hear a man say heâs a âfree thinkerâ and bases his life on proof, logic and science â I hear a man telling me heâs desperately hoping that the empirical proof and scientific knowledge of his generation is actually ârightâ because thatâs what he bases his faith upon, and he doesnât want to be wrong. The problem with this is, your own faith will betray you because science advances and, ultimately, proves its own ignorance after a number of years. Think about it: at one time, a âfree thinkerâ would have based his faith his faith on such ideas as âthe world is flatâ, âthe moon is made of cheeseâ, âand the sun revolves around the earthâ. History shows that much of science is wrong. The fact is, thereâs so much stuff we believe scientifically in our modern times thatâs going to be absolutely laughable in 300 years. Middle schoolers will be sitting around going âoh my God! They thought atoms were small!! Hahaha!â and âthey had to launch these big dangerous things called âshuttlesâ just to get into space! Hahahahaa!â Iâd be absolutely terrified to base my belief in God on something as errant and full of fallacy as science and my own logic.
i have an orange unicorn. you wanna see it? well, you can't see it, but i can. you must trust me on this. have faith in this, i do. you believe me don't you? you must, because I KNOW IT TO BE TRUE! I HAVE FAITH! and faith is all I need. right? you must believe me. you wouldn't ask me for proof would you? nah you wouldn't because you and i understand that all the proof i need is in my faith. what else is do i need? nothing. i have faith.
I never said whether God exists one way or the other. I never said faith absolutely proves his existence. Why are you talking about orange unicorns? I'm talking about how God can't be seen through science.
ok. we can't use science. we can't use accepted rules of evidence. we can't use reason. we can't use our physical senses. what do you propose we use to see him?
This is already laying the foundations for another "debate". Everyone knows that debate is about 10% truth and 90% presentation, word acrobatics and weaving a tapestry of semantic bullshit. Someone has to be a "winner" and "loser" based on presentation. I'm not trying to get into that. I've had lots of religious debates and I can't stand it because, just like religion, everything gets broken into laws, figures and data. It's all a bunch of words and intellectual posturing that masks the heart and any willingness to see another persons perspective. You immediately establish who represents what idea and then hop into the arena to battle it out. I'm not going to debate and argue over words. I suppose what I'm trying to get at is what's BEYOND logic. What's in the heart of man that causes him to take up a given position in the first place? What is it in a man that makes him even ask the "God" question in the first place? What is it that that makes him even resort to logic at all? Something deep in ones heart occured BEFORE the logical approach. Logic was SECOND - what came first? I mean, whether you believe in a soul or not - we can all agree that there's some kind of CORE to every person. One believes in a soul, one man believes in neuology. Whatever. But something houses all those insecurities, fears, doubt, self-hatreds, beliefs, joys and desires. That's the core of a man. I'm much more curious as to how that fits into your perspective on God.
Those things really aren't the fault of science, or the scientific method, per se. It's just a method of establishing rational 'facts', or theories (and I use the word is a scientific sense) about the universe we live in. I'm sure you'd agree that a longing for understanding is an eminently human desire and since science does, in many ways (although certainly not in all), an admirable job of answering that longing -- something you validate everytime you switch the TV on, open the refrigerator or, if you're an American, jump in your SUV -- then it hardly gets being human "ass backwards". Now, do humans have an unquechable desire to ascribe meaning to life (one's own and in general)? Hell yes. Does believing in a God do a good job of satisfying that desire? Again, hell yes. Is that such a bad thing? Even a 'de facto' (at times anyway ) existentialist like me can honestly say Hell no. Honestly â name one significant experience in your life that would have been as equally impacting if you had ONLY acquired the scientific knowledge about it. Can you understand how sex feels if youâve only read about it? Falling in love? Riding a roller coaster? Attending a funeral of a loved one? Eating a Snickers? I canât think of ONE thing in my life that could have made more sense through science, âproofâ, âlogicâ, etcâ¦than if I just saw/experienced it through my own human condition, faith and a heart without some kind of mental bias. Oh, come off it. Science isn't incompatible with any of that. A scientific inquiry would hardly deny what you've said. It only tries to go further than the individual, subjective assessments that one person might make to establishing more precise principles. Unless you're some artsy anti-establishment type, how can you even pretend that that subtracts from understanding? So take up a variation on your own challenge: given the impact any experience has already had on you, name ONE thing that you wouldn't understand better (or the same, but not worse) with a scientific investigation into it? Not to mention some aspects of existance that you wouldn't understand at all (the list is obviously long indeed.) Science is never going to âproveâ God. When a person goes that route, they feel vulnerable in matters of faith, the heart and soul. So they try to prepare themselves with âlogicâ and science. They try to build their lives upon an unshakeable foundation â thus eliminating the by-product of insecurity and vulnerability that so often comes with new experiences. People want to logically disprove God to alleviate the nagging insecurity about whether or not He exists. Theyâre tired of thinking about in bed at 2:30am â so they throw themselves into books and science because, supposedly, that will give the answer. Science is wonderful. But the truth is that people who make it a religion or a way of life are terrified inside. Theyâre terrified of their own vulnerability in regards to matters that require a personal investment above and beyond their knowledge base. Oh, do get off the high horse now. Look, I'll even admit it right to you: I'm insecure. Ok? About many things. I get all tense and sweaty approaching a beautiful girl; I worry about how my hair looks when I go out; I feel a pathological need to impress my peers by wearing the 'right' clothes; but am I worried about whether God exists? Do I stay up to 2.30 thinking about it? Oh GAWD, of course I don't. Maybe it's you that's "terrified" of your "vulnerability" in regards to some people just not caring one iota about "matters beyond their knowledge base." When I hear a man say heâs a âfree thinkerâ and bases his life on proof, logic and science â I hear a man telling me heâs desperately hoping that the empirical proof and scientific knowledge of his generation is actually ârightâ because thatâs what he bases his faith upon, and he doesnât want to be wrong. Well, speaking for myself, I'm hardly "desperately hoping". Hey, it'd actually be pretty cool if there was a God; I'd love it if there was! I just don't happen to think there is.
you pretty well nailed it Maelstrom, and the critics just proved it with their little comments. to the critics: people who think they know everything are ALWAYS wrong. That is one of the few certainties of life.
"WHAT CAME FIRST"? i am so glad you asked... Abbott: Alright, now whaddya want? Costello: Now look, I'm the head of the sports department. I gotta know the baseball players' names. Do you know the guys' names? Abbott: Oh sure. Costello: So you go ahead and tell me some of their names. Abbott: Well, I'll introduce you to the boys. You know sometimes nowadays they give ballplayers peculiar names. Costello: You mean funny names. Abbott: Nicknames, pet names, like Dizzy Dean. Costello: His brother Daffy Abbott: Daffy Dean Costello: And their cousin! Abbott: Who's that? Costello: Goofy! Abbott: Goofy, huh? Now let's see. We have on the bags - we have Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know's on third. Costello: That's what I wanna find out. Abbott: I say Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know's on third Costello: You know the fellows' names? Abbott: Certainly! Costello: Well then who's on first? Abbott: Yes! Costello: I mean the fellow's name! Abbott: Who! Costello: The guy on first! Abbott: Who! Costello: The first baseman! Abbott: Who! Costello: The guy playing first! Abbott: Who is on first! Costello: Now whaddya askin' me for? Abbott: I'm telling you Who is on first. Costello: Well, I'm asking YOU who's on first! Abbott: That's the man's name. Costello: That's who's name? Abbott: Yes. Costello: Well go ahead and tell me. Abbott: Who. Costello: The guy on first. Abbott: Who! Costello: The first baseman. Abbott: Who is on first! Costello: Have you got a contract with the first baseman? Abbott: Absolutely. Costello: Who signs the contract? Abbott: Well, naturally! Costello: When you pay off the first baseman every month, who gets the money? Abbott: Every dollar. Why not? The man's entitled to it. Costello: Who is? Abbott: Yes. Sometimes his wife comes down and collects it. Costello: Who's wife? Abbott: Yes. Costello: All I'm tryin' to find out is what's the guy's name on first base. Abbott: Oh, no - wait a minute, don't switch 'em around. What is on second base. Costello: I'm not askin' you who's on second. Abbott: Who is on first. Costello: I don't know. Abbott: He's on third - now we're not talkin' 'bout him. Costello: Now, how did I get on third base? Abbott: You mentioned his name! Costello: If I mentioned the third baseman's name, who did I say is playing third? Abbott: No - Who's playing first. Costello: Never mind first - I wanna know what's the guy's name on third. Abbott: No - What's on second. Costello: I'm not askin' you who's on second. Abbott: Who's on first. Costello: I don't know. Abbott: He's on third. Costello: Aaah! Would you please stay on third base and don't go off it? Abbott: What was it you wanted? Costello: Now who's playin' third base? Abbott: Now why do you insist on putting Who on third base? Costello: Why? Who am I putting over there? Abbott: Yes. But we don't want him there. Costello: What's the guy's name on third base? Abbott: What belongs on second. Costello: I'm not askin' you who's on second. Abbott: Who's on first. Costello: I don't know. Abbott & Costello: THIRD BASE! Costello: You got an outfield? Abbott: Oh yes! Costello: The left fielder's name? Abbott: Why. Costello: I don't know, I just thought I'd ask you. Abbott: Well, I just thought I'd tell you. Costello: Alright, then tell me who's playin' left field. Abbott: Who is playing fir- Costello: STAY OUTTA THE INFIELD! I wanna know what's the left fielder's name. Abbott: What's on second. Costello: I'm not askin' you who's on second. Abbott: Who's on first. Costello: I don't know. Abbott & Costello: THIRD BASE! Costello: The left fielder's name? Abbott: Why. Costello: Because! Abbott: Oh, he's center field. Costello: Look, you gotta pitcher on this team? Abbott: Now wouldn't this be a fine team without a pitcher. Costello: The pitcher's name. Abbott: Tomorrow. Costello: You don't wanna tell me today? Abbott: I'm tellin' you now. Costello: Then go ahead. Abbott: Tomorrow. Costello: What time? Abbott: What time what? Costello: What time tomorrow are you going to tell me who's pitching? Abbott: Now listen. Who is not pitching. Who is on fir- Costello: I'll break your arm if you say Who's on first. I wanna know what's the pitcher's name. Abbott: What's on second. Costello: I don't know. Abbott & Costello: THIRD BASE! Costello: You got a catcher? Abbott: Oh, absolutely. Costello: The catcher's name. Abbott: Today. Costello: Today. And Tomorrow's pitching. Abbott: Now you've got it. Costello: All we've got is a couple of days on the team. Abbott: Well, I can't help that. Costello: Well, I'm a catcher too. Abbott: I know that. Costello: Now suppose that I'm catching, Tomorrow's pitching on my team and their heavy hitter gets up. Abbott: Yes. Costello: Tomorrow throws the ball. The batter bunts the ball. When he bunts the ball, me being a good catcher, I wanna throw the guy out at first base. So I pick up the ball and throw it to who? Abbott: Now that's the first thing you've said right. Costello: I don't even know what I'm talkin' about! Abbott: Well, that's all you have to do. Costello: Is to throw the ball to first base. Abbott: Yes. Costello: Now who's got it? Abbott: Naturally! Costello: If I throw the ball to first base, somebody's gotta catch it. Now who caught it? Abbott: Naturally! Costello: Who caught it? Abbott: Naturally. Costello: Who? Abbott: Naturally! Costello: Naturally. Abbott: Yes. Costello: So I pick up the ball and I throw it to Naturally. Abbott: NO, NO, NO! You throw the ball to first base and Who gets it? Costello: Naturally. Abbott: That's right. There we go. Costello: So I pick up the ball and I throw it to Naturally. Abbott: You don't! Costello: I throw it to who? Abbott: Naturally. Costello: THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING! Abbott: You're not saying it that way. Costello: I said I throw the ball to Naturally. Abbott: You don't - you throw the ball to Who? Costello: Naturally! Abbott: Well, say that! Costello: THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING! I throw the ball to who? Abbott: Naturally. Costello: Ask me. Abbott: You throw the ball to Who? Costello: Naturally. Abbott: That's it. Costello: SAME AS YOU!! I throw the ball to first base and who gets it? Abbott: Naturally! Costello: Who has it? Abbott: Naturally! Costello: HE BETTER HAVE IT! I throw the ball to first base. Whoever it is grabs the ball, so the guy runs to second. Who picks up the ball and throws it to What, What throws it to I Don't Know, I Don't Know throws it back to Tomorrow - triple play. Abbott: Yes. Costello: Another guy gets up - it's a long fly ball to Because. Why? I don't know. He's on third and I don't give a darn! Abbott: What was that? Costello: I said I don't give a darn! Abbott: Oh, that's our shortstop. ps Malestrom, your FOS!
Oh yeah, I agree totally. It's obvious I didn't make that clear in my original post. Science is great for explaining an experiance FURTHER, but it's no substitute for initial experiance. I'm not saying science science doesn't work, I'm saying it can't be the starting point for trying to find God - or most anything for that matter. But does science provide tremendous insight into how things work? Sure. Does it amplify understanding and knowledge? Absolutely.