Can science go forward...

[artsylady]

You seem to have a high arrogance with regards to why people believe in God and view life as belonging to Him.

I have always respected the opinion of the agnostic, but I do also find the opinion of the atheist to be arrogant. In order to know there is no god, you would have to possess the knowledge of the entire universe. You would have to be a god. While we know that there are more unknowns in the universe than knowns, it's quite a stance to take to say that you still know there is no god.

Personally, I find it amusing when a follower of a religion whose believers regularly accuse non-believers of evil and sin and tell them they're going to burn in Hell until the end of time and believe that they're favored and loved by an almighty supreme creator of the universe comes and tells me I'm arrogant. But I digress.

Let's say you grew up on a desert island with limited food. You had to work to gather food, water and firewood, but you survived.

One day, a man named Paul rows up on a boat and greets you. He tells you that if you leave the island, he will row you out to a magnificent huge cruise ship. On that ship there is an unlimited food supply of sumptuous appetizers, delectable entrées, and a tempting array of desserts, prepared by top chefs and available around the clock. There are beautiful clothes to don, fabulous social activities with many wonderful and exciting people. On the ship, you don't have to lift a finger if you don't want to. Gone are the days of hard toil. You can simply relax or you can engage in some of the ship's many fun activities. He also sends you a warning that very soon, the island you are on will be completely destroyed by a hurricane.

Paul then allows you time to think about his offer and rows back out to sea and out of sight.

The next day another man, Fred, rows up to the shore and greets you. Fred tells you that Paul is a liar. He tells you that no cruise ship exists and that there is no hurricane that is about to destroy your island.

Now you are very confused and unsure of what to do, undoubtedly. You have two completely different people telling you completely opposite stories that will affect your life. But..... do you decide to reject Paul as the liar because you feel he has given you no choice? Or do you decide to not believe Paul because you believe him to be arrogant? Do you dimills Paul as the liar because you don't like the consequenses he has presented for the future of your island?

[Valoran]

Now you are very confused and unsure of what to do, undoubtedly. You have two completely different people telling you completely opposite stories that will affect your life. But..... do you decide to reject Paul as the liar because you feel he has given you no choice? Or do you decide to not believe Paul because you believe him to be arrogant? Do you dimills Paul as the liar because you don't like the consequenses he has presented for the future of your island?

Allow me to propose a somewhat modified version of your analogy.

Paul tells you that there is a huge cruise ship full of luxury and comforts, essentially the same as your analogy, but he also tells you that there are certain strings attached, and that you will have to live by certain rules and worship the captain of the ship as a god. Paul further tells you that unless you worship the captain, you will forever be a bad and evil man no matter what you do. Furthermore, not only will the captain himself be responsible for the impending hurricane, but he will choose not to save you despite the fact that he's entirely capable of it if you do not bow down and worship him.

Curious, you then ask Paul what this captain and his ship is like. Paul gives you a few stories and descriptions about both of them, and leaves to give you time to consider the offer.

The next day Fred comes along. He does not know whether the captain and the ship really exists, but he presents solid evidence that the stories and descriptions that Paul gave regarding the captain and the ship are false. Furthermore, although stories about this captain and his ship are all over the place, nobody has actually seen the captain in the flesh, nor stepped on his ship in person. When asked about the means to locate and identify this ship and captain, people respond that this is beyond the limits of human ability and knowledge to accomplish, nor can we understand the captain's thoughts and motives, and all we can do is worship the captain in the belief that good things will happen.

On the third day, Paul returns to hear your decision. Having heard what Fred had to say, you ask Paul if he has any evidence to back up his claims. Unable to do so, a flustered and agitated Paul accuses you of arrogance and tells you that your fate for not blindly accepting the existence and almighty power of the captain will be to drown, and suffer for all of eternity after that.

Are there any reasons you can think of that you shouldn't dismiss Paul as an arrogant hypocrite? Especially when you have done nothing whatsoever to attack his character in the first place.

[artsylady]

Allow me to propose a somewhat modified version of your analogy.

Paul tells you that there is a huge cruise ship full of luxury and comforts, essentially the same as your analogy, but he also tells you that there are certain strings attached, and that you will have to live by certain rules and worship the captain of the ship as a god. Paul further tells you that unless you worship the captain, you will forever be a bad and evil man no matter what you do. Furthermore, not only will the captain himself be responsible for the impending hurricane, but he will choose not to save you despite the fact that he's entirely capable of it if you do not bow down and worship him.

Did you ever consider that worship might be for the believer and not for God? The enemy of God cannot stand the sound of worship and flees. It's in manual. So if we are humans worship God, we are more free to commune with him. We can take our battles to him (as he wants us to do) We can trust him to take care of us emotionally and spirtually all of the time, but when we worship, we eliminate the influence of satan. It's pretty well known among mature Christians that if we are downtrodden or depressed, worship actually uplifts us. Now knowing that, worship sounds pretty good actually, doesn't it? The 'strings attached" are things like trusting to take care of our burdens and living in peace, even in troubled times. A sense of well being that wants us to reach out to others in need and have compassion for others. From the viewpoint of the believer it's a pretty easy ship to want to stay on. I am sure you will have your own opinion about what it's like to be a believer, but take it from a believer please. And I"m sure others will agree here. I am definitely happier, more confident and more at peace than my non Christian friends and I have my faith to thank for it. And I have gone through many battles, even worse than theirs. Christians who are mature and faithful cannever renounce our faith because we love it, we love the perks and we truly love God. I hope you can try to understand this.

The next day Fred comes along. He does not know whether the captain and the ship really exists, but he presents solid evidence that the stories and descriptions that Paul gave regarding the captain and the ship are false. Furthermore, although stories about this captain and his ship are all over the place, nobody has actually seen the captain in the flesh, nor stepped on his ship in person. When asked about the means to locate and identify this ship and captain, people respond that this is beyond the limits of human ability and knowledge to accomplish, nor can we understand the captain's thoughts and motives, and all we can do is worship the captain in the belief that good things will happen.

Now you're getting way off topic. But I will induldge you and show you where you are misrepresenting things.

First off, may I should have added that Paul;s motivation for warning you is that he loves you and wants to see you to safety and doesn't want you to fall for the lies of Fred? Don't forget too, that Paul had already warned you about Fred and had told you that Fred is a liar. You don't seem to consider this anymore and have suddenly decided it's Paul, not Fred who is the liar. Mainly, things we are talking about, evidence for heaven, hell, creation, etc CANNOT be proven in science because science is limited to the natural. So, throw out the part about proof that the ship doesn't exist because it's not valid here.

What could be valid and where I can add something is that there are people in Fred's camp who will tell you the ship doesn't exist. But, there are those in Paul's camp who tell you they've met the captian, they love him and they have a beautiful spiritual connection with him, that they won't give up, and that some have even gone to their deaths, rather than renounce it.

On the third day, Paul returns to hear your decision. Having heard what Fred had to say, you ask Paul if he has any evidence to back up his claims. Unable to do so, a flustered and agitated Paul accuses you of arrogance and tells you that your fate for not blindly accepting the existence and almighty power of the captain will be to drown, and suffer for all of eternity after that.

Again, you have changed the scenario to where it doesn't fit.

In my scenario, as in the Bible story, you have your entire life until death to decide and the consequences have been told to you from the beginning. In your rendition, God keeps the fate of the nonbeliever a secret until after he chooses. Not at all the same.

Are there any reasons you can think of that you shouldn't dismiss Paul as an arrogant hypocrite? Especially when you have done nothing whatsoever to attack his character in the first place.

Well, I still see no reason for you to believe Fred over Paul, especially if the claims that Paul makes are unproveable, which they are. And I still don't see why you'd describe him as arrogant, when he claims to be warning you out of love. That makes no sense.

Hypocrite? Wow. Why? I dont' see that either.

Gee, you really don't want to like Paul at all do you? Very interesting.

[artsylady]

I have always respected the opinion of the agnostic, but I do also find the opinion of the atheist to be arrogant. In order to know there is no god, you would have to possess the knowledge of the entire universe. You would have to be a god. While we know that there are more unknowns in the universe than knowns, it's quite a stance to take to say that you still know there is no god.

So tell me how you do it? Logically speaking.

[Valoran]

Did you ever consider that worship might be for the believer and not for God? The enemy of God cannot stand the sound of worship and flees. It's in manual. So if we are humans worship God, we are more free to commune with him. We can take our battles to him (as he wants us to do) We can trust him to take care of us emotionally and spirtually all of the time, but when we worship, we eliminate the influence of satan.

May I suggest the possibility that a less self-centered captain, if he is truly all-powerful, would not deign to make it a condition of worshiping him in order to be protected from the hurricane - which is, to repeat, one of his own making. It seems strange that an omnipotent, loving captain who can supposedly do anything needs to be worshiped before we can be protected from harm of his doing.

Do we command ants to worship us, lest we stomp them flat into the ground?

Now you're getting way off topic. But I will induldge you and show you where you are misrepresenting things.

First off, may I should have added that Paul;s motivation for warning you is that he loves you and wants to see you to safety and doesn't want you to fall for the lies of Fred? Don't forget too, that Paul had already warned you about Fred and had told you that Fred is a liar. You don't seem to consider this anymore and have suddenly decided it's Paul, not Fred who is the liar. Mainly, things we are talking about, evidence for heaven, hell, creation, etc CANNOT be proven in science because science is limited to the natural. So, throw out the part about proof that the ship doesn't exist because it's not valid here.

And this is the part where you demonstrate that my analogy is not so far off after all. Not only is there zero evidence about your claims regarding the supernatural, there is zero evidence that there is even a supernatural in the first place. Likewise, when Paul is revealed to have zero evidence not only about his description of the ship, but the existence of the ship itself, Paul starts labeling you as arrogant and demands you to throw out the evidence.

I for one am baffled that you seem to think that it's useful to talk at length about the nature of something, when there is not only zero evidence regarding your claims, but also zero evidence regarding the very existence of that something, and expect anyone to take you seriously. Can you tell us why?

What could be valid and where I can add something is that there are people in Fred's camp who will tell you the ship doesn't exist. But, there are those in Paul's camp who tell you they've met the captian, they love him and they have a beautiful spiritual connection with him, that they won't give up, and that some have even gone to their deaths, rather than renounce it.

Except that those in Paul's camp who makes those claims turn out to have just as much evidence as Paul does. In other words, none at all.

Again, you have changed the scenario to where it doesn't fit.

In my scenario, as in the Bible story, you have your entire life until death to decide and the consequences have been told to you from the beginning. In your rendition, God keeps the fate of the nonbeliever a secret until after he chooses. Not at all the same.

You're nitpicking on an insignificant difference. But if it satisfies you, allow me to apologize for my mistake, and amend my analogy to say that Paul warns you about eternal torment on his first visit as well. Now, what exactly do you think that changes?

Well, I still see no reason for you to believe Fred over Paul, especially if the claims that Paul makes are unproveable, which they are. And I still don't see why you'd describe him as arrogant, when he claims to be warning you out of love. That makes no sense.

In my analogy, Fred makes no claims about the existence about the ship or the captain, but he shows hard evidence why Paul's claims about the nature of the ship and captain cannot possibly be true, whereas Paul calls you arrogant when you point out the inconsistencies to him and asks if he has any proof to counter Fred's claims. That in itself is an act of sheer arrogance, but I guess I can understand if you disagree. You have the same vested interests as Paul, after all.

Gee, you really don't want to like Paul at all do you? Very interesting.

Paul hasn't shown himself to be a very likeable character. He's arrogant, irrational, hypocritical, ignorant about the evidence against his case and seeks to simply hand-wave them away, and quite possibly suffering from delusions. Now that describes a good number of us, and possibly myself as well on a number of occasions. But no, I admit that I don't quite see where Paul is supposed to endear himself to me.

I have always respected the opinion of the agnostic, but I do also find the opinion of the atheist to be arrogant. In order to know there is no god, you would have to possess the knowledge of the entire universe. You would have to be a god. While we know that there are more unknowns in the universe than knowns, it's quite a stance to take to say that you still know there is no god.

So tell me how you do it? Logically speaking.

I can't honestly say I know that there is no god. What I can say with certainty, however, is that there is no Christian God. As I see it, an allegedly all-knowing supreme deity who makes so many scientific errors when delivering His Word (the Bible) means either one of two things: that this deity is not all-knowing after all, or that he simply doesn't exist except as a figment of imagination.

[Watchman Neo]

Science is limited by man's limitatiions...can it go forward to explain the infinite in terms of the limited?

[Valoran]

I have always respected the opinion of the agnostic, but I do also find the opinion of the atheist theist to be arrogant. In order to know there no is a god, you would have to possess the knowledge of the entire universe in order to accurately claim that everything that science cannot explain is in fact attributable to god. You would have to be a god. While we know that there are more unknowns in the universe than knowns, it's quite a stance to take to say that you still know there is no a god.

So tell me how you do it? Logically speaking.

Fixed that for you.

[artsylady]

May I suggest the possibility that a less self-centered captain, if he is truly all-powerful, would not deign to make it a condition of worshiping him in order to be protected from the hurricane - which is, to repeat, one of his own making. It seems strange that an omnipotent, loving captain who can supposedly do anything needs to be worshiped before we can be protected from harm of his doing.

But it's not from the hurricane that we are being protected when we worship. It's from his adversary who wants to steal, kill and destroy. Again, from the opinion of the believer would you take our word for it that worship is actually for our advantage?

Humans seem to be prone to worship. We see grown men yelling screaming, waving flags or whatever, dressed up with makeup and worshipping their favourite football team. We see young girls having idols that sing. They write fan letters, have posters, attending every concert screaming or crying their eyes out. Worship is part of our make up, which again, makes us very different from animals.

If we merely want to be protected from the hurricane, we can decide to just believe the captain exists, on our deathbeds.

First off, may I should have added that Paul;s motivation for warning you is that he loves you and wants to see you to safety and doesn't want you to fall for the lies of Fred? Don't forget too, that Paul had already warned you about Fred and had told you that Fred is a liar. You don't seem to consider this anymore and have suddenly decided it's Paul, not Fred who is the liar. Mainly, things we are talking about, evidence for heaven, hell, creation, etc CANNOT be proven in science because science is limited to the natural. So, throw out the part about proof that the ship doesn't exist because it's not valid here.

And this is the part where you demonstrate that my analogy is not so far off after all. Not only is there zero evidence about your claims regarding the supernatural, there is zero evidence that there is even a supernatural in the first place. Likewise, when Paul is revealed to have zero evidence not only about his description of the ship, but the existence of the ship itself, Paul starts labeling you as arrogant and demands you to throw out the evidence.

I'll start over and forget the analogy for a moment. If a supernatural God exists and created the world and everything in it, can science prove this or is science limited?

I for one am baffled that you seem to think that it's useful to talk at length about the nature of something, when there is not only zero evidence regarding your claims, but also zero evidence regarding the very existence of that something, and expect anyone to take you seriously. Can you tell us why?

I am baffled that anyone who can liken the belief to a fairy tale, can debate for hours on the existance and spend so much time trying to prove it wrong. Actually, I am not really baffled. From my position, God is still calling you and that is why people choose to continue to fight against it.

What could be valid and where I can add something is that there are people in Fred's camp who will tell you the ship doesn't exist. But, there are those in Paul's camp who tell you they've met the captian, they love him and they have a beautiful spiritual connection with him, that they won't give up, and that some have even gone to their deaths, rather than renounce it

.

Except that those in Paul's camp who makes those claims turn out to have just as much evidence as Paul does. In other words, none at all.

In any event, it would be hard to difficult to prove the ship did NOT exist, when there are those who say it does.

And back to the bigger picture, can you still call Paul, or the captain arrogant?

[artsylady]

Again, you have changed the scenario to where it doesn't fit.

In my scenario, as in the Bible story, you have your entire life until death to decide and the consequences have been told to you from the beginning. In your rendition, God keeps the fate of the nonbeliever a secret until after he chooses. Not at all the same.

You're nitpicking on an insignificant difference. But if it satisfies you, allow me to apologize for my mistake, and amend my analogy to say that Paul warns you about eternal torment on his first visit as well. Now, what exactly do you think that changes?

I find them to be very different. Let's get a brand new analogy for you. You start a new job. You are bored due to lack of work and decide to check your personal email. Your boss gets angry and fires you because of it. So you start a new job. Your boss tells you ahead of time that using personal email on company time is grounds for firing. Do you see the difference?

Well, I still see no reason for you to believe Fred over Paul, especially if the claims that Paul makes are unproveable, which they are. And I still don't see why you'd describe him as arrogant, when he claims to be warning you out of love. That makes no sense.

In my analogy, Fred makes no claims about the existence about the ship or the captain, but he shows hard evidence why Paul's claims about the nature of the ship and captain cannot possibly be true, whereas Paul calls you arrogant when you point out the inconsistencies to him and asks if he has any proof to counter Fred's claims. That in itself is an act of sheer arrogance, but I guess I can understand if you disagree. You have the same vested interests as Paul, after all.

Well, if you can tell me how you can prove that heaven or hell cannot possibly be true, you might have a point here.

Gee, you really don't want to like Paul at all do you? Very interesting.

Paul hasn't shown himself to be a very likeable character. He's arrogant, irrational, hypocritical, ignorant about the evidence against his case and seeks to simply hand-wave them away, and quite possibly suffering from delusions. Now that describes a good number of us, and possibly myself as well on a number of occasions. But no, I admit that I don't quite see where Paul is supposed to endear himself to me.

He's irrational now too? You rhyme off many things. Please describe why he's arrogant, irrational, hypocritical. Again, he can't be ignorant about the evidence against his case, just as no one can prove heaven and hell do not exist.

I have always respected the opinion of the agnostic, but I do also find the opinion of the atheist to be arrogant. In order to know there is no god, you would have to possess the knowledge of the entire universe. You would have to be a god. While we know that there are more unknowns in the universe than knowns, it's quite a stance to take to say that you still know there is no god.

So tell me how you do it? Logically speaking.

I can't honestly say I know that there is no god. What I can say with certainty, however, is that there is no Christian God. As I see it, an allegedly all-knowing supreme deity who makes so many scientific errors when delivering His Word (the Bible) means either one of two things: that this deity is not all-knowing after all, or that he simply doesn't exist except as a figment of imagination.

Okay, well that is a start. This thread is getting too long already so I'll stop it there and leave it for later.

[Valoran]

Hi artsylady,

But it's not from the hurricane that we are being protected when we worship. It's from his adversary who wants to steal, kill and destroy. Again, from the opinion of the believer would you take our word for it that worship is actually for our advantage?

As far as I can remember, it's not going to be Satan who will judge and cast us into Hell, but God. What do you think it says about God's omnipotence if Satan is able to cast us into Hell willy-nilly without God's nod of approval? Not a very flattering picture, I imagine, which of course is not allowed by the Christian ideology. Even if it were Satan casting us into Hell (which it isn't), it stands to reason that he's doing it only with God's permission.

Humans seem to be prone to worship. We see grown men yelling screaming, waving flags or whatever, dressed up with makeup and worshipping their favourite football team. We see young girls having idols that sing. They write fan letters, have posters, attending every concert screaming or crying their eyes out. Worship is part of our make up, which again, makes us very different from animals.

Really?

"Let everything that has breath praise the LORD." - Psalm 150:6

"Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, saying: "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!"" - Revelation 5:13

If we merely want to be protected from the hurricane, we can decide to just believe the captain exists, on our deathbeds.

For some reason, I highly doubt that such a shenanigan would work with an allegedly omniscient God who knows our every thought and intent before we even form them.

I'll start over and forget the analogy for a moment. If a supernatural God exists and created the world and everything in it, can science prove this or is science limited?

I can see you're also beginning to realize that presenting analogies apparently isn't quite working in your favor. But you're right that science is limited. Science is limited to what is useful. Science is not able to prove nonsense, for example. But with that said, science would be able to detect signs that the world was indeed created by the Christian God since the world and everything in it is not supernatural. We'd be able to prove, for instance, that the world is indeed only ~7000 years old, that the Earth is older than the sun and moon and stars, that life appeared spontaneously over a period of six days instead of evolving over hundreds of millions of years, our genetic variance would indicate that we and all other species were descended from only one male-female pair only a few thousand years ago, and various other such claims. As it is, not only do we find zero evidence for these claims, we find credible and consistent evidence from almost every field of science agreeing that they are dead wrong.

I am baffled that anyone who can liken the belief to a fairy tale, can debate for hours on the existance and spend so much time trying to prove it wrong. Actually, I am not really baffled. From my position, God is still calling you and that is why people choose to continue to fight against it.

Assuming your logic is valid, you must feel a very strong call yourself from agnosticism and atheism!

And back to the bigger picture, can you still call Paul, or the captain arrogant?

I can, and I've already explained why. Theists are arrogant according to the very same reasoning with which you argue that atheists are arrogant. Post #158 sums up my argument, I believe.

I find them to be very different. Let's get a brand new analogy for you. You start a new job. You are bored due to lack of work and decide to check your personal email. Your boss gets angry and fires you because of it. So you start a new job. Your boss tells you ahead of time that using personal email on company time is grounds for firing. Do you see the difference?

Actually, yes, I do. My boss isn't in the business of universal love and salvation. He's not even in the business of charity. He's in the business of making a profit, and I'm going to get fired if he thinks I'm not conducive towards that end goal. There's actually nothing illogical at all with an all-powerful God banishing us to Hell for all of eternity for not worshiping him. Like your boss analogy, it makes a lot of sense and a lot of people have no problem understanding the concept, even if they might not agree with it. It's when theists claim that God is kind and loving as well that they trap themselves in an embarrassing paradox, which they then try to extricate themselves from using special pleading, gross double standards, invalid analogies, and/or plain old nonsense.

Well, if you can tell me how you can prove that heaven or hell cannot possibly be true, you might have a point here.

The point is that a lot of Paul's claims have been shown to be false. Dubious of his remaining claims, you ask him if he can actually show solid proof of the existence of the ship and captain so as to trump Fred's evidence and dispel your doubts, and that's when Paul calls you arrogant and demands that you ignore the evidence.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Valoran