|
I cannot give you proof, faith and prayer require perseverance and, first and foremost, belief.Once again, that sounds like you are asking for blind faith. "Faith first, then the proof will come!" That sounds dangerously like True-believer syndrome.
Yes, if you want me to use an overused cliche.To me, it sounds like your argument is exactly that overused cliché. I do not mind that it is overused or a cliché. What I do mind is that it is simply not a good argument. It is the equivalent of "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." It is a misdirection. Something a con-man would use. The ultimate moving target.
Whatever. I'm not trying to convince you so your point is merely wasted on me. If you want to dismiss Faith, dismiss it. I choose not to and I have been rewarded with things that I won't waste my breath enumerating to someone who is bent on disbelieving for the sake of it. If you are truly interested in Faith fine, if you just want a pissing contest find someone else. It really makes no odds to me.
The fact that very small things do not do things the way larger things do. I.e. You cannot measure the path/direction of a very small particle AND know its position as well. It's a one or the other situation. This does not apply to big things. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and all that. That is what I mean by paradox, unless groundbreaking research has happened that I am unaware of.
This is no paradox. It does apply to big things. The fact that these effects are irrelevant for big particles is a direct consequence of the theory. Nothing odd about it.
|
|
No offense intended but isn't faith always blind?I cannot give you proof, faith and prayer require perseverance and, first and foremost, belief.Once again, that sounds like you are asking for blind faith...
Sometimes yes, but it only begins that way. Oh, and I don't take offense easily. If you ask me an honest and fair question I'll do my best to reciprocate it.
Whatever. I'm not trying to convince you so your point is merely wasted on me. If you want to dismiss Faith, dismiss it. I choose not to and I have been rewarded with things that I won't waste my breath enumerating to someone who is bent on disbelieving for the sake of it. If you are truly interested in Faith fine, if you just want a pissing contest find someone else. It really makes no odds to me.
Who is really doing the dismissing here?
Whatever. I'm not trying to convince you so your point is merely wasted on me. If you want to dismiss Faith, dismiss it. I choose not to and I have been rewarded with things that I won't waste my breath enumerating to someone who is bent on disbelieving for the sake of it. If you are truly interested in Faith fine, if you just want a pissing contest find someone else. It really makes no odds to me.Who is really doing the dismissing here?
ME!
Class dismissed.
.
.
.
.
I couldn't help myself :P
|
|
Quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics are a paradox too, but scientists haven't quit on either issues because both have provided evidence. Instead, they look for ways to unify the theories.About speaking with GodI'm still not exactly sure where you're saying the knowledge for god comes from. If it is a paradox, can knowledge for God really exist?
I know I quoted Marcus, but anyone feel free to weigh in.
Why do you say that they are paradoxes?
I replied earlier about this to another poster.
Yes knowledge of God can exist, but you have to make the step in a similar way to said scientists. Don't make the step keep on a wondering. I don't know how God does what He does. But I have seen the results. I'd be one dishonest scientist if I were to dismiss Him just because I couldn't get my second rate noodle around it. :)I'm not asking you to dismiss him, just wondering where your information comes from. This still really hasn't answered my question, but brings up new ones. What do you mean by dishonest scientist and why are you implying that they have second rate noodles? Why would a scientist disregard results unless they weren't valid? What makes your results valid?
Actually I was implying that I have a second rate noodle (i.e. brain), I was making a funny. Doesn't come over well in text I guess.
There was a survey of cancer patients in a California hospital. A group of Christians prayed for half the group and not the other. The survival rate of those (who incidentally had no connection with the patients and neither prayer or prayee knew who each other was, or even that they were being prayed for) was statistically interesting. It's a pity I can't quote it but it was written up in the London Times around 2000 time. All I know is that the survival rate was over doubled for those patients who had been prayed for against those that weren't.
They test new drugs in a similar way too.
Now this and many other similar events doesn't prove God but it gives credence to those who are of a scientific bent expect experimentation to back up findings.
But the main thrust of my point is that were I to perform miracles in front of people some would still find some way to explain it was not God centered.
Class dismissed.
I don't feel tardy.
Give me somethin' to write on!
Class dismissed.
I don't feel tardy.
Give me somethin' to write on!
Bad poodle! Stop humping my leg! I know you're hot for teacher though.
|
|
This is no paradox. It does apply to big things. The fact that these effects are irrelevant for big particles is a direct consequence of the theory. Nothing odd about it.
The fact that very small things do not do things the way larger things do. I.e. You cannot measure the path/direction of a very small particle AND know its position as well. It's a one or the other situation. This does not apply to big things. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and all that. That is what I mean by paradox, unless groundbreaking research has happened that I am unaware of.
But they react differently. Why? Where is the unification behind the Physics of the very large and the very small. Surely there must be an underlying logic?
Have you studied the electron test fired through slits?
|
|
Whatever. I'm not trying to convince you so your point is merely wasted on me. If you want to dismiss Faith, dismiss it. I choose not to and I have been rewarded with things that I won't waste my breath enumerating to someone who is bent on disbelieving for the sake of it. If you are truly interested in Faith fine, if you just want a pissing contest find someone else. It really makes no odds to me.Who is really doing the dismissing here?
;)
|
But the main thrust of my point is that were I to perform miracles in front of people some would still find some way to explain it was not God centered.
What is wrong with this? In the search for the divine shouldn't one want to differentiate the divine from the profane/mundane? Besides, shouldn't we bewary of cheats and charlatans doing the same? If there are 50 people claiming to perform miracles, should I expect all of them to be upfront?
|
|
But they react differently. Why? Where is the unification behind the Physics of the very large and the very small. Surely there must be an underlying logic?This is no paradox. It does apply to big things. The fact that these effects are irrelevant for big particles is a direct consequence of the theory. Nothing odd about it.
The fact that very small things do not do things the way larger things do. I.e. You cannot measure the path/direction of a very small particle AND know its position as well. It's a one or the other situation. This does not apply to big things. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and all that. That is what I mean by paradox, unless groundbreaking research has happened that I am unaware of.
Why assume a divine origin when all other possible explanations have yet to be exhausted?
|
|
What is wrong with this? In the search for the divine shouldn't one want to differentiate the divine from the profane/mundane? Besides, shouldn't we bewary of cheats and charlatans doing the same? If there are 50 people claiming to perform miracles, should I expect all of them to be upfront?But the main thrust of my point is that were I to perform miracles in front of people some would still find some way to explain it was not God centered.
Yes you should test all the profane/mundane things. That's sound logic and I've never argued against sound logic. There are a whole host of charlatans around. You only need to switch on the TV to see that. This is one of my main reasons for being angry with the churches in general. Maybe I should have qualified my statement and as your questions are well intended I will answer you thus.
Testing the spirit and God is sometimes necessary because plenty of "religious" people claim untrue things. But I cannot convince someone God exists, nor am I trying. I said right at the beginning that you need to believe and then you will see, but it takes a while, and it takes a certain amount of trust. All I am saying is why I believe and trust in a personal God who loves. I am saying faith can be found and it doesn't necessarily make life easier. Sometimes things are harder, but the reward always outweighs the cost. I'm talking about in this life and not the next either.
|
|
Why assume a divine origin when all other possible explanations have yet to be exhausted?But they react differently. Why? Where is the unification behind the Physics of the very large and the very small. Surely there must be an underlying logic?This is no paradox. It does apply to big things. The fact that these effects are irrelevant for big particles is a direct consequence of the theory. Nothing odd about it.
The fact that very small things do not do things the way larger things do. I.e. You cannot measure the path/direction of a very small particle AND know its position as well. It's a one or the other situation. This does not apply to big things. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and all that. That is what I mean by paradox, unless groundbreaking research has happened that I am unaware of.
Why not assume Divine origin? The other explanations I've heard are as far-fetched as the God premise.
This is no paradox. It does apply to big things. The fact that these effects are irrelevant for big particles is a direct consequence of the theory. Nothing odd about it.But they react differently. Why? Where is the unification behind the Physics of the very large and the very small. Surely there must be an underlying logic?
Have you studied the electron test fired through slits?
IMNSheldonCooper, but I don't see the problem:
"Recent studies have revealed that interference is not restricted solely to elementary particles such as protons, neutrons, and electrons. Specifically, it has been shown that large molecular structures like fullerene (C60) also produce interference patterns."
|
Why assume a divine origin when all other possible explanations have yet to be exhausted?But they react differently. Why? Where is the unification behind the Physics of the very large and the very small. Surely there must be an underlying logic?This is no paradox. It does apply to big things. The fact that these effects are irrelevant for big particles is a direct consequence of the theory. Nothing odd about it.
The fact that very small things do not do things the way larger things do. I.e. You cannot measure the path/direction of a very small particle AND know its position as well. It's a one or the other situation. This does not apply to big things. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and all that. That is what I mean by paradox, unless groundbreaking research has happened that I am unaware of.
Don't assume. Sometimes though it is in fact the answer.
|
|
What is wrong with this? In the search for the divine shouldn't one want to differentiate the divine from the profane/mundane? Besides, shouldn't we bewary of cheats and charlatans doing the same? If there are 50 people claiming to perform miracles, should I expect all of them to be upfront?But the main thrust of my point is that were I to perform miracles in front of people some would still find some way to explain it was not God centered.
Yes you should test all the profane/mundane things. That's sound logic and I've never argued against sound logic. There are a whole host of charlatans around. You only need to switch on the TV to see that. This is one of my main reasons for being angry with the churches in general. Maybe I should have qualified my statement and as your questions are well intended I will answer you thus.
Testing the spirit and God is sometimes necessary because plenty of "religious" people claim untrue things. But I cannot convince someone God exists, nor am I trying. I said right at the beginning that you need to believe and then you will see, but it takes a while, and it takes a certain amount of trust. All I am saying is why I believe and trust in a personal God who loves. I am saying faith can be found and it doesn't necessarily make life easier. Sometimes things are harder, but the reward always outweighs the cost. I'm talking about in this life and not the next either.
I'm still not sure what your answer is here. So far it's come off as paradoxical in nature. I must have faith in a being who may/may not exist before I can know he's there... but shouldn't faith come from knowledge? There isn't a knowledge of God described yet, so I'm left baffled as to what your actual answer is.
:(
|
|
This is no paradox. It does apply to big things. The fact that these effects are irrelevant for big particles is a direct consequence of the theory. Nothing odd about it.But they react differently. Why? Where is the unification behind the Physics of the very large and the very small. Surely there must be an underlying logic?
Have you studied the electron test fired through slits?
IMNSheldonCooper, but I don't see the problem:
"Recent studies have revealed that interference is not restricted solely to elementary particles such as protons, neutrons, and electrons. Specifically, it has been shown that large molecular structures like fullerene (C60) also produce interference patterns."
Very interesting.
|
|
This is no paradox. It does apply to big things. The fact that these effects are irrelevant for big particles is a direct consequence of the theory. Nothing odd about it.But they react differently. Why? Where is the unification behind the Physics of the very large and the very small. Surely there must be an underlying logic?
Have you studied the electron test fired through slits?
IMNSheldonCooper, but I don't see the problem:
"Recent studies have revealed that interference is not restricted solely to elementary particles such as protons, neutrons, and electrons. Specifically, it has been shown that large molecular structures like fullerene (C60) also produce interference patterns."
They are still very small though. I know atoms behave like this too. But a lump of rock doesn't.
|
|
What is wrong with this? In the search for the divine shouldn't one want to differentiate the divine from the profane/mundane? Besides, shouldn't we bewary of cheats and charlatans doing the same? If there are 50 people claiming to perform miracles, should I expect all of them to be upfront?But the main thrust of my point is that were I to perform miracles in front of people some would still find some way to explain it was not God centered.
Yes you should test all the profane/mundane things. That's sound logic and I've never argued against sound logic. There are a whole host of charlatans around. You only need to switch on the TV to see that. This is one of my main reasons for being angry with the churches in general. Maybe I should have qualified my statement and as your questions are well intended I will answer you thus.
Testing the spirit and God is sometimes necessary because plenty of "religious" people claim untrue things. But I cannot convince someone God exists, nor am I trying. I said right at the beginning that you need to believe and then you will see, but it takes a while, and it takes a certain amount of trust. All I am saying is why I believe and trust in a personal God who loves. I am saying faith can be found and it doesn't necessarily make life easier. Sometimes things are harder, but the reward always outweighs the cost. I'm talking about in this life and not the next either.
I'm still not sure what your answer is here. So far it's come off as paradoxical in nature. I must have faith in a being who may/may not exist before I can know he's there... but shouldn't faith come from knowledge? There isn't a knowledge of God described yet, so I'm left baffled as to what your actual answer is.
:(
I'm sorry I'm baffling you. I am not trying to be mean. Faith does indeed come from knowledge and the more God works in your life the more knowledge you will acquire. Believe first, and see. Besides you lose nothing by trying.
|
|
What is wrong with this? In the search for the divine shouldn't one want to differentiate the divine from the profane/mundane? Besides, shouldn't we bewary of cheats and charlatans doing the same? If there are 50 people claiming to perform miracles, should I expect all of them to be upfront?But the main thrust of my point is that were I to perform miracles in front of people some would still find some way to explain it was not God centered.
Yes you should test all the profane/mundane things. That's sound logic and I've never argued against sound logic. There are a whole host of charlatans around. You only need to switch on the TV to see that. This is one of my main reasons for being angry with the churches in general. Maybe I should have qualified my statement and as your questions are well intended I will answer you thus.
Testing the spirit and God is sometimes necessary because plenty of "religious" people claim untrue things. But I cannot convince someone God exists, nor am I trying. I said right at the beginning that you need to believe and then you will see, but it takes a while, and it takes a certain amount of trust. All I am saying is why I believe and trust in a personal God who loves. I am saying faith can be found and it doesn't necessarily make life easier. Sometimes things are harder, but the reward always outweighs the cost. I'm talking about in this life and not the next either.
I'm still not sure what your answer is here. So far it's come off as paradoxical in nature. I must have faith in a being who may/may not exist before I can know he's there... but shouldn't faith come from knowledge? There isn't a knowledge of God described yet, so I'm left baffled as to what your actual answer is.
:(
One simple explanation is that yes there is knowledge of God. This knowledge comes to us from many people over a long stretch of history. Some of it is in the bible some of it lies elsewhere. Some choose to listen to this others, well they don't take one look at it but 'believe' anyway. Others say but look we have all these other books and stories and traditions what about them. Which is why some choose to dismiss all without a second look or skim it and say I don't believe it at all like a child would who is looking at calculus for the first time. So we should research, ask and talk about it. I can't convince you that this is the right path, just the one I am on.
|
|
There isn't a knowledge of God described yet...Just trying to keep up. What did you mean by this. (Not saying I'm going to respond, just trying to figure out what exactly is being discussed.)
I asked him how he knew God existed, where does his belief actually come from? So far, I'm left perplexed as to what his answer actually is or was. Hence my inability to understand.
|
|
They are still very small though. I know atoms behave like this too. But a lump of rock doesn't.This is no paradox. It does apply to big things. The fact that these effects are irrelevant for big particles is a direct consequence of the theory. Nothing odd about it.But they react differently. Why? Where is the unification behind the Physics of the very large and the very small. Surely there must be an underlying logic?
Have you studied the electron test fired through slits?
IMNSheldonCooper, but I don't see the problem:
"Recent studies have revealed that interference is not restricted solely to elementary particles such as protons, neutrons, and electrons. Specifically, it has been shown that large molecular structures like fullerene (C60) also produce interference patterns."
Because a lump of rock wont fit through the slits.
|
|
Because a lump of rock wont fit through the slits.They are still very small though. I know atoms behave like this too. But a lump of rock doesn't.This is no paradox. It does apply to big things. The fact that these effects are irrelevant for big particles is a direct consequence of the theory. Nothing odd about it.But they react differently. Why? Where is the unification behind the Physics of the very large and the very small. Surely there must be an underlying logic?
Have you studied the electron test fired through slits?
IMNSheldonCooper, but I don't see the problem:
"Recent studies have revealed that interference is not restricted solely to elementary particles such as protons, neutrons, and electrons. Specifically, it has been shown that large molecular structures like fullerene (C60) also produce interference patterns."
C'mon use your noodle! Make bigger slits! ;)
"Recent studies have revealed that interference is not restricted solely to elementary particles such as protons, neutrons, and electrons. Specifically, it has been shown that large molecular structures like fullerene (C60) also produce interference patterns."They are still very small though. I know atoms behave like this too. But a lump of rock doesn't.
My knowledge of highschool physics is over a decade old, but I'm not 100% sure a lump of rock doesn't also behave this way. It might be an order of magnitude so slight that it is imperceptible to you and I. It might have more to do with the stability of multi-molecular clumps of matter. Whatever the reason, the phenomena is scientifically measurable, testable, and reproducible.
|
Well, maybe I should ask this first: How does one have faith before knowledge?
How much knowledge?
A few thoughts of mine on this. (But for the most part, I don't like this train of thought.)
I have faith that a multiple ton machine will get me -- through the air -- from Denver to New York. Yet I don't have an intricate working knowledge of how or why.
Is "Faith" blind? I would say that most people who are in whatever "faith" feel that they have made a conscious decision. Yet the decision still seems to be a bit "mysterious". I don't feel that faith is blind -- but I don't feel that faith is "logical" either.
Faith is not where you need all the answers to make an informed decision. Nor should it be an emotional walk down the aisle while the organ plays. I think it's somewhere between the two extremes, is different for different people, and isn't anything that can be easily defined.
|
|
Well, maybe I should ask this first: How does one have faith before knowledge?How much knowledge?
A few thoughts of mine on this. (But for the most part, I don't like this train of thought.)
I have faith that a multiple ton machine will get me -- through the air -- from Denver to New York. Yet I don't have an intricate working knowledge of how or why.
Is "Faith" blind? I would say that most people who are in whatever "faith" feel that they have made a conscious decision. Yet the decision still seems to be a bit "mysterious". I don't feel that faith is blind -- but I don't feel that faith is "logical" either.
Faith is not where you need all the answers to make an informed decision. Nor should it be an emotional walk down the aisle while the organ plays. I think it's somewhere between the two extremes, is different for different people, and isn't anything that can be easily defined.
Okay then, let me ask about something else then. Why have faith in somethings that are evident: you can get on an airplane and fly to nearly anywhere, but why the leap to assume that the divine exists if it cannot be detected except through extrasensory means?
|
|
Okay then, let me ask about something else then. Why have faith in somethings that are evident: you can get on an airplane and fly to nearly anywhere, but why the leap to assume that the divine exists if it cannot be detected except through extrasensory means?
Hmmmm.
Because -- All the cool kids are doing it.
Seriously, you'll get a different answer depending on who you talk to. These answers may range from "potential afterlife rewards" to "it's nice to belong to a socially accepting 'club'".
In the end it doesn't really matter. There really isn't a good reason for it. I know why I have my faith -- I saw my "airplane" to help solidify it -- but your faith (or lack thereof) shouldn't be based on mine.
Also -- "extrasensory". It has pretty well been said here that many of you would want to analyze a "sighting" (or whatever) until it could be proven false. If God suddenly appeared in your living room in all his splendor, you (or others here) would be looking for projectors, and lighting, and mirrors, and black holes or string theories. And yet (regardless of what science says) I think it's (still) pretty amazing that I'm here -- and there's little "extrasensory" about that.
|
|
I'm sorry if my last post came across as a bit much. "Faith" is difficult to even accurately define -- let alone understand. Yet Christians often seem to feel that others should "just take it on faith" -- which is dumb. And then on the other side it's like people feel that "faith" should be a reproducible experiment -- which is equally dumb.
I look back to even way before may "experience" and there truly is no logical reason for me to have faith -- yet I did. Even then, I felt like my faith was based on something. But it was probably just as intangible as a lot of other responses to this.
I guess that I don't like the implied message that people with faith didn't think things through, that it wasn't a decision, or that they are illogical.
|
|
Okay then, let me ask about something else then. Why have faith in somethings that are evident: you can get on an airplane and fly to nearly anywhere, but why the leap to assume that the divine exists if it cannot be detected except through extrasensory means?Hmmmm.
Because -- All the cool kids are doing it.
Seriously, you'll get a different answer depending on who you talk to. These answers may range from "potential afterlife rewards" to "it's nice to belong to a socially accepting 'club'".
In the end it doesn't really matter. There really isn't a good reason for it. I know why I have my faith -- I saw my "airplane" to help solidify it -- but your faith (or lack thereof) shouldn't be based on mine.
Also -- "extrasensory". It has pretty well been said here that many of you would want to analyze a "sighting" (or whatever) until it could be proven false. If God suddenly appeared in your living room in all his splendor, you (or others here) would be looking for projectors, and lighting, and mirrors, and black holes or string theories. And yet (regardless of what science says) I think it's (still) pretty amazing that I'm here -- and there's little "extrasensory" about that.
Okay, but your faith tells you that there is a God. It tells you that he is full of splendor and not just a man. It tells you so much about this being who is unobserved in any fashion except what is beyond my ken, apparently. This is why I ask what the source for the knowledge is. What is the source of your faith in God?
|
|
I'm sorry if my last post came across as a bit much. "Faith" is difficult to even accurately define -- let alone understand. Yet Christians often seem to feel that others should "just take it on faith" -- which is dumb. And then on the other side it's like people feel that "faith" should be a reproducible experiment -- which is equally dumb.
I look back to even way before may "experience" and there truly is no logical reason for me to have faith -- yet I did. Even then, I felt like my faith was based on something. But it was probably just as intangible as a lot of other responses to this.
I guess that I don't like the implied message that people with faith didn't think things through, that it wasn't a decision, or that they are illogical.
Don't sweat it. I'm not looking for a reproducable experience, but a relatable one.
|
|
Okay, but your faith tells you that there is a God. It tells you that he is full of splendor and not just a man. It tells you so much about this being who is unobserved in any fashion except what is beyond my ken, apparently. This is why I ask what the source for the knowledge is. What is the source of your faith in God?
I'll say this, but keep in mind that for me it's very quantitative.
"People"
There was a survey of cancer patients in a California hospital. A group of Christians prayed for half the group and not the other. The survival rate of those (who incidentally had no connection with the patients and neither prayer or prayee knew who each other was, or even that they were being prayed for) was statistically interesting. It's a pity I can't quote it but it was written up in the London Times around 2000 time. All I know is that the survival rate was over doubled for those patients who had been prayed for against...
That study was put under heavy fire for flaws in methodology, as I recall, but never mind that -- it was superceded in 2006 by Benson et al. in the American Heart Journal, in a study of 1,802 patients (as opposed to ~350 surveyed in Ca). The 2006 results were as follows:
In other words, there was no statistical difference. Numbers-wise, the people being prayed for fared LESS well than the people who weren't -- and that effect was more pronounced when the people being prayed for knew that people were praying for them.
|
|
Okay, but your faith tells you that there is a God. It tells you that he is full of splendor and not just a man. It tells you so much about this being who is unobserved in any fashion except what is beyond my ken, apparently. This is why I ask what the source for the knowledge is. What is the source of your faith in God?I'll say this, but keep in mind that for me it's very quantitative.
"People"
I'm asking you personally. You don't have to answer if you don't want. Looking back, it doesn't look like Marcus wanted to either. :\
I'll drop it.
|
|
Okay, but your faith tells you that there is a God. It tells you that he is full of splendor and not just a man. It tells you so much about this being who is unobserved in any fashion except what is beyond my ken, apparently. This is why I ask what the source for the knowledge is. What is the source of your faith in God?I'll say this, but keep in mind that for me it's very quantitative.
"People"
I'm asking you personally. You don't have to answer if you don't want. Looking back, it doesn't look like Marcus wanted to either. :\
I'll drop it.
I did answer it. (Didn't I?)
|
|
I did answer it. (Didn't I?)Okay, but your faith tells you that there is a God. It tells you that he is full of splendor and not just a man. It tells you so much about this being who is unobserved in any fashion except what is beyond my ken, apparently. This is why I ask what the source for the knowledge is. What is the source of your faith in God?I'll say this, but keep in mind that for me it's very quantitative.
"People"
I'm asking you personally. You don't have to answer if you don't want. Looking back, it doesn't look like Marcus wanted to either. :\
I'll drop it.
Not in the slightest that I can tell. It was sort of vague. Okay, it seemed really vague. :P
|
|
Pasqal."potential afterlife rewards"Dammit, I'm losing too much grey matter in my old age. Who was the mathmetician (i think he was a mathmetician) that had the theory that basically did a cost-benefit analysis regarding adherence vs. disbelief? fark...it'll come to me eventually.
That's right, Pascal's Wager!
|
|
What is the source of your faith in God?
"People"
I did answer it. (Didn't I?)
Not in the slightest that I can tell. It was sort of vague. Okay, it seemed really vague. :P
Ok, I'll try and expand on it. I "see" God in people. At least certain people. Who they are, what they do, how they react, etc. These are Christian people who I respect and admire. And they don't take credit, they are humble, they are strong, they are logical, and they know their stuff. I also feel I gain insight into who or what God is through them. Don't get me wrong, the Bible helps -- but it's kind of like learning to play tennis from a book. Is it possible, sure -- but it's a whole lot better if you have someone there to help you along who's been through it already.
But when I say very quantitative -- in our church of around 150 people, I would include say 4 of them in this group.
There's a difference between people who go to church, do all the right things, etc. and people who actually are Christian. It's hard to accurately explain.
Also -- "extrasensory". It has pretty well been said here that many of you would want to analyze a "sighting" (or whatever) until it could be proven false. If God suddenly appeared in your living room in all his splendor, you (or others here) would be looking for projectors, and lighting, and mirrors, and black holes or string theories. And yet (regardless of what science says) I think it's (still) pretty amazing that I'm here -- and there's little "extrasensory" about that.
Maybe I'm weird (Let's skip the maybe; I'm weird.) but I wouldn't say that I'd want to examine something until it's proven false. I want to examine it thoroughly so I can know if it's true or false. I don't care what outcome I get so much as I care that I arrive at the correct one for the correct reasons. I want to be right, and have a right to be right, whatever being right entails. :) The accuracy of my opinions is far more important to me than the content of those opinions.
I say that because I don't think I'm infallible. I could be dreaming. I could be hallucinating. I could be mistaken. I could be the victim of a sophisticated fraud. I had an intensely bizarre dream a month ago about walking home naked at night and being shot in the chest by a few teenagers who climbed out of a van mounted on top of a unicycle. When I woke up I knew that I was dreaming, but at the time I had no idea. If I can fool myself, despite having to be aware on some level that I'm doing so, then certainly other people can fool me.
So if the Christian god appeared to me in all his splendor, I dearly hope I'd be looking for the smoke machines, the projectors, the mirrors, and all the rest. I dare say I'd like blood and tissue samples too. And photographs, video, any bit of instrumentation I can throw at it. I'd want this god fellow to do some miracles to prove his bonafides. And I'd want other people doing the same thing so I know I'm not caught in a very elaborate delusion or being defrauded by someone who is taking advantage of gaps in my education. It's the responsible thing to do.
If it turns out this god is a fraud, then I would rather know that than believe a lie. If it turns out he's the real deal, I would rather know that than believe a lie.
But they react differently. Why? Where is the unification behind the Physics of the very large and the very small. Surely there must be an underlying logic?
Have you studied the electron test fired through slits?
This is exactly the point. The same underlying logic which leads to electron diffraction leads to baseballs not diffracting. There is no disconnection. This is one of the first things one demonstrates in QM 101
|
|
What is the source of your faith in God?"People"I did answer it. (Didn't I?)Not in the slightest that I can tell. It was sort of vague. Okay, it seemed really vague. :POk, I'll try and expand on it. I "see" God in people. At least certain people. Who they are, what they do, how they react, etc. These are Christian people who I respect and admire. And they don't take credit, they are humble, they are strong, they are logical, and they know their stuff. I also feel I gain insight into who or what God is through them. Don't get me wrong, the Bible helps -- but it's kind of like learning to play tennis from a book. Is it possible, sure -- but it's a whole lot better if you have someone there to help you along who's been through it already.
But when I say very quantitative -- in our church of around 150 people, I would include say 4 of them in this group.
There's a difference between people who go to church, do all the right things, etc. and people who actually are Christian. It's hard to accurately explain.
Don't sweat it, I feel that people who try to do the right thing and actively seek to make the lives of others better are beyond others in a fashion too. We can agree on that much, but it makes me wonder why you see God in them and I don't. Why can't I see this? Is there something I am missing?
I have much of the same knowledge and experience as others would have here. Typical public school education. Grew up in a mixed family. We all apparently play fantasy RPGs. What is the thing that seperates our experiences?
It seems to me that there must be something more specific. Hence my constant probing. :P
I get some answers that way, but it still leaves me curious. I'm glad you shared your insight on people in your church, however. What about the other 146 people in the church. You say their experience of God is personal, but if he's one being then why do they differ so much?
|
|
... but it makes me wonder why you see God in them and I don't. Why can't I see this? Is there something I am missing?
Maybe. There are a lot of people in the world that are "good" or do good things. The people I look at/look for have something different about them. I'm not done with this question yet, but I really don't have much more than CF's "mysterious ways" to give a better answer at this moment. I'll think about it some more.
I'm glad you shared your insight on people in your church, however. What about the other 146 people in the church. You say their experience of God is personal, but if he's one being then why do they differ so much?
Two different things here. Generally, the other 146 are good people. It's not about being ... "good". There's something intangible about the four I'm talking about.
As far as the "differ" question -- is that so odd? Find any influential individual and you will get quite a few different views on said individual.
The other thing is -- and keep in mind that this is strictly my opinion -- there are a lot of people out there that may think that they are Christian but are just missing it. They may be trying to get there but I think that far too often we try and make God fit what we want him to be.
|
|
Well, maybe I should ask this first: How does one have faith before knowledge?
Scientist's do it all the time. They think about a problem first, think about how a possible solution might work and call it a hypothesis. Then they test it. If the results of their experiments don't work they dismiss it and try another hypothesis.
That's similar to believing before seeing. Except the measuring stick you use is prayer. But a lot of folks won't do it because they think its kooky.
I am actually a scientist by training, so I know how this works. But having an open mind is useful. I, like many atheists have no use for superstition, and some atheists believe Christianity and all the great faiths are a superstition. I don't share that belief because God has continued to reveal things to me throughout my life that are very convincing. Had I not been shown anything then I would dismiss it as superstition too. But I have experienced too many things that God has done in my life to rationally dismiss Him.
Richard Dawkins, an esteemed and brilliant biologist and self proclaimed atheist does not believe in God. But from what I have read of him, a lot of his anti-God rhetoric comes from his irritation with Creationists and especially the Creation Science brigade. I can't say I blame him for getting irritated by these people.
He was once asked in a book why he doesn't believe in God (cite "Science and Wonder" by Russell Stannard, publ. Faber), and his answer was "If I were God I would make myself more visible to my Creation". Here he makes a mistake. First you cannot be God so its a little silly to try and theorize about God from God's perspective. He then went on to say that human need for God was an evolutionary anomaly. The questioner said in reply that though this might be the case, there are a lot more people who believe in some other greater being than there are folks that believe in none. Perhaps those folks of the latter argument are the evolutionary anomaly. Dawkins to his credit didn't disagree.
Atheists also argue that people adopt faith because of fear of death. Why fear death? When you die you are gone and your body pushes up the daisies, so to speak. Besides living faith begins at its inception, while you're alive. I do not look to death for reward and live my life as a miserable being, but instead I am rewarded every day I live by the wonderful things faith opens to my heart. Rather than narrowing one's perspectives, true faith enlarges them. This is what I have found.
I'm afraid that the Church establishments and institutions have caused a lot of damage by trying to codify God and by using the bible as a book that is an infallible book of laws. The bible is not infallible. It has been translated from many languages and often the translator loses context and meaning from original texts. So it is really quite meaningless without God's guidance through it.
There is much knowledge to be gained and faith comes from belief and increases as one perseveres. God is love incarnate. Loving kindness is mentioned all the way through the OT. Jesus is the fulfillment of a perfect Law that no one can keep. So if you read anything that matters in the bible it's this. Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and body, and love your neighbor as yourself. Persevering with this brings inner peace. This is the heart of the Law and the Spirit of God brings life and comfort.
|
|
"Recent studies have revealed that interference is not restricted solely to elementary particles such as protons, neutrons, and electrons. Specifically, it has been shown that large molecular structures like fullerene (C60) also produce interference patterns."They are still very small though. I know atoms behave like this too. But a lump of rock doesn't.My knowledge of highschool physics is over a decade old, but I'm not 100% sure a lump of rock doesn't also behave this way. It might be an order of magnitude so slight that it is imperceptible to you and I. It might have more to do with the stability of multi-molecular clumps of matter. Whatever the reason, the phenomena is scientifically measurable, testable, and reproducible.
Not with QM it isn't. The point is that if you truly understand QM you will understand what I am saying. Why do you think scientists are still looking for the Universal Theory of Everything? To wrap up this paradox. The math is correct but the observations are at odds with it. Scientists know there is something missing. I'm sure, one day they'll find it, but they haven't as yet. The universe is far more complicated than any of us believed.
|
|
Is "Faith" blind? I would say that most people who are in whatever "faith" feel that they have made a conscious decision. Yet the decision still seems to be a bit "mysterious". I don't feel that faith is blind -- but I don't feel that faith is "logical" either.
There's no reason why faith can't be logical. It's probably perfectly logical to God, but not to us because we do not possess His ineffable mind.
|
|
I guess that I don't like the implied message that people with faith didn't think things through, that it wasn't a decision, or that they are illogical.
People do think things through. God created us in his image and therefore we have inquiring minds. But my belief didn't come through illogical thought. I am, however, humble enough to accept that there are things I cannot understand. God comes down to our level only because we cannot mentally ascend to His.