If they're a trustworthy observer, I'd certainly give them the benefit of the doubt that they saw something unexplainable. I certainly wouldn't immediately jump down their throat and tell them they were an idiot for believing in ghosts. Do ghosts exist? Who the hell knows?? In the absence of information either way, I certainly wouldn't be willing to claim I had absolute knowledge one way or the other.
Knowing and believing are definitely two different things. I may believe there is (for want of a better word) a God, but I would not claim to know it definitively. The bible is a completely separate issue upon which we would probably find much in common - I do not subscribe to the concept that the bible is the literal word of God. There is too much historical documentation to the contrary. And I definitely agree with you that there is no way humans have all the answers. Hence my assertion that it is ridiculous for anyone to claim that they KNOW there is no God. They may certainly BELIEVE that, but there's no way they can KNOW it.
Hi, Maybe I overlooked him, but among all the names of great scientists that appeared in this thread, I missed Gödel. He is the man who took the illusions away of people who had for two centuries set their hopes on finalizing the construction of the temple of human logic. He did this in the most lasting and unchallenged way. Kurt Gödel is without doubt a giant of mathematical logic. He was a deeply religious person. ( "Who Got Einstein's Office?: Eccentricity and Genius at the Institute for Advanced Study" by Edward Regis.) nononsense
"God" isn't just a "creative intelligence" though. There are a number of other necessary characteristics, such as omniscience, omnipotence etc, and a moral necessity for mankind to worship him. Omnipotence is logically impossible; and morally one could argue that there are no grounds to be forced to worship anything. Therefore God, in the conventional sense, literally cannot exist. A "creator" may exist, but it could not be accurately described as God, or even a god. The only way around it is to change the definition of God away from the Biblical (or Koranic etc) one. Thus almost every single modern theist who also is aware of basic logic & scientific beliefs does not believe in a strictly traditional Biblical God, but rather a vague "super being" creator - the exceptions simply have not considered the logical impossibility of omnipotence & omniscience (e.g. an omnipotent being cannot create an impossible task, without losing his omnipotence in the process). Thus even the intelligent theists have admitted that there is no real God after all, just a kind of advanced, powerful creator-being. This leaves only the creationists and fundamentalists as true believers - and do we have anyone here prepared to support their beliefs? In addition, the vast majority of scientists believe in induction, which as David Hume demonstrated a couple of centuries ago, is nothing but mere superstition. Many scientists also adhere to the fallacy that science describes reality or is at least capable of doing so, which is an even greater howler. With such irrational and superstitious beliefs being widely held, it is no surprise that many scientists also believe in some kind of "god" without requiring their normally high standards of proof. Theist scientists explanations are the usual "magical thinking" e.g. the universe is too "orderly" to be the result of chance. Imagine someone saying that to justify a proof in maths or an experiment in physics.
Cutten- In your second to last paragraph you asked if anyone was prepared to support creationism and biblical accuracy. are you prepared to refute creationism. I have gotten into this before, let me state that I believed in evolution most of my life, it does not conflict with my religious beliefs, but after much comparison, I believe evolution and creationism are both far from "scientifically proven". I may even find it hard to part with my education, but still I have to admit evolution is suspect. Thesis- there is no missing link, the fossil record which Darwin forecasted has not been found. No one will ever see a specious evolve into another because it takes to long-- so really it is just a guess. Also- evolution is absolutely speculation because you can not tell us what happened before the big bang. Consequently it may have been God who started the universe. He may have created evolution if it exists. (PBS did a show on this) Two what part of the bible can be proven to be wrong? Is it historically inaccurate, how about geographically. Have you noticed over the last 200 years how many of these bible is inaccurate agrements have disappeared. Now, again, the church I attend does not read the bible literally, but I have read a ton of fundamentalist apologetics, and they have very strong arguments in support of the literal interpretation of the bible so lets see what you have to show them they are wrong. This will be fun because there are a ton of sites all over the net supporting a literal reading of the bible. Lets see what you can produce. I am more than willing to learn.
a]I looked for the quote of Werhner[Werner Magnus Maximillion] Von Braun about the Bible being so up to date, but i have not found that[again].I think he said it anyway, still looking... B]One beartrend-real estate appraiser laughed & said said an assistant questioned Dr Von Braun .You mean the rocket can come down also??LOL [c]I dont know if Dr Werner Von Braun was a Christian. But i did find a quote''To me it would be incomprehensible to have such a master gigantic plan without a master planner . The master planner is the Creater of the Universe. '' Interesting when someone asked him if he believed in God, he not only said yes-actually Werner said '""yes absolutely''. Cool thread, even if all the science is not settledl/written on this now .