Believing in science is a belief in the supernatural ultimately. Because the very existence of 'nature' in the first place would be a 'supernatural phenomenon'.

Science just accept that energy exists (which is a supernatural belief), and then suggests that everything that follows after that is 'natural'.

It's a groundless philosophy in that sense.

I think science makes far better sense as viewed for what it truly is. Not a philosophy at all, but simply a method of describing what can be sensed.

In fact, as sky points out, science can't even touch upon the concept of things that can be experienced, but rather it can only address things that can be sensed.

By the way, I agree with your previous statment:



All of the physical senses can indeed be reduced to a sense of 'touch' in the what that you've revealed here.

Science is only concerned with the sense of "touch" so-to-speak.

Science cannot even begin to address 'experience' beyond this very limited physical sense of 'touch' (which, as you quite rightfully point out: all senses necessarily reduce to)

I personally have no problem at all allowing for an omnipotent creator the ability to do seemingly unrealistic feats.

My problem with the basis of the Biblical doctrine is that the behavior of said God conflicts with the character traits the god is supposed to represent.

It makes no sense to me to have a supposedly all-wise, all merciful, god solving all this problem with brutal violent methods that exhibit the mentality of a barroom drunkard.

So my objection to the mythology is not based on physical impossiblities. It's simply based on the fact that I see a major conflict in the idea of a supposedly all-wise God reacting in such utterly stupid ways to solve his problems.

The whole idea of being appeased by blood sacrifices already suggests that we're looking a demonic character, and not a divine being. So I reject the mythology based mostly on the fact that the God it describes falls far short of the character traits that it is said to possess. The behavior of the god is in gross conflict with the character traits that the mythology claims to bestow upon it.

It's a logical fallacy to question the actions of a supreme being.

You are speaking in circles you see. Either a) God exists and you cannot question his actions, because he has perfect knowledge, wisdom and character or b) You have to reject the God of the Bible because you don't believe in a personal supreme being.

As it is, you question the actions of God, which makes no sense. You are saying "Well, I would believe in a all powerful, all knowing God, but I know more than him!". It's laughable.

So you either need to find a reason why the Christian God couldn't exist as described (ignoring the actions! You can't question the actions, because at that point you are accepting his existence and questioning the actions of a supreme being is a logical fallacy) or you need to just take the intellectually dishonest route and say you don't believe because you don't want to. There is always the third option, which is to accept Jesus.

I wouldn't question the actions of a God at all, if the story was consistent. The morons who wrote the Bible are what's laughable.

They claim that God is all-wise and all-merciful and then they have God doing utterly stupid and merciless things.

Moreover, why should I believe the authors who claim that God told people to judge each other and stone sinners, heathens and unruly children to death? If I'm going to believe in an all-powerful intervening God I would accept that the God himself could weed out the sinners, and heathens and execute them himself without having to ask humans to judge each other and brutally stone each other to death.

It's just stupid. It has nothing to do with judging the actions of a God. It flies in the very face of a God who is all-wise. You can't have a supposedly all-wise going around doing utterly stupid things.

Besides, once you wake-up to the fact that authors of Bible were themselves blasphemists by claiming to speak for the creator of this universe it should become crystal clear that the only reason they told people that God wants them to murder "heathens" is to get their readers to defend the very lies that they have printed.

The very idea of a supposedly all-wise God who goes around solving all his problems using utterly ignorant methods of violence is an oxymoronic mythology.



I absolutely do accept Jesus. As best I tell, according to the Gospels even Jesus denounced the utterly stupid ways of the Old Testament. Jesus himself was crucified for blaspheme.

Moreover, the very idea that the God of the Old Testament would command people to murder "heathens", where a "heathen" is basically defined as anyone who disagrees with the "word of that God himself", and then send his only begotten son into that same crowd to reject the very teachings of that God would be utterly ludicrous. Especially to have him do so whilst simultaneously attempting to claim that not one jot or tittle shall pass from law.

Such a God would not only be utterly stupid, but it would also be totally incapable of clearly communicating to the creatures of it's very own creation. That very message right there would have been extremely unclear. Jesus is saying on the one hand, "Not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law", and at the very same time saying, "Oh by the way, I no longer want you to judge other people and stone them to death".

Any truly intelligent God who wanted to change the rules would have simply said so.

The reason the Bible is written the way it is, is because the men who were attempting to use Jesus as a pasty to prop up the very dogma that Jesus himself denounced were desperate. They were caught between the conflicts of the teachings of the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus, which were far more closely aligned to the teachings of Buddha.

So, yes, I absolutely accept the teachings of Jesus. Jesus denounced the fictitious dogma of Yahweh and attempted to teach love and wisdom instead of ignorance and revenge.

Jesus denounced the teaching of Yahweh. And so do I. Those teaching were utterly stupid and violent. They were nothing more than the made-up lies of mortal men. There never was any Yahweh anymore than there was a Zeus. Jesus was as mortal as you and I. He was our brother.

Spider saidI don't see how choosing to believe is any more intellectually honest than choosing to not believe - or not choosing to believe.

I guess you are equating senses to existing?

We already went through this before.

If a person were in coma with no senses, yes, they still exist and live. Not much of a life but they do.

Senses are our survival functions. But if we have none of them we are still alive.

I would necessarily need to be intellectually dishonest to pretend that the stories make sense.

The only possible way to pretend to believe in such a god would be to lie about it. This is yet another reason why the religion makes no sense to me.

Even if this God where to quite literally reveal himself to me I would need to honestly tell him that if the Bible is a reflection of his personality I personally feel that he's a complete idiotic jerk.

At best, all he could possibly do is explain how I misunderstood. But all that would prove is that his book failed to explain correctly in the first place. So there's basically no hope for it.

I'm actually suggesting the contrary. That we exist independent of our senses.

Once again, committing the same fallacy.

If God is all-wise, then how do you know that what he did is stupid or merciless? You must know MORE than God to judge God's actions. There is a reason that smart non-Christians don't question God's behavior, they instead question his nature or try to refute arguments presented by Christians. You also commonly ignore incredibly important facts, like requirements and goals. What were God's goals in creating the universe, according to the Bible? You have no idea and don't care to learn. What features of the universe were constructed to meet God's goals? Once again, you don't care to even wonder.

You are perfectly happy being intellectually coherent. To wit, you are happy to reject the God of the Bible, because you think you could do a better job, all the while you ignore God's goals in creating the universe and the specifications to which the universe was made and the fact that if God does exist, the reasons for his actions would probably be beyond your comprehension.

Basically, if you can do a better job, then create your own universe. If you can't do that, then you can't question God's behavior and remain intellectually coherent.

Okay. That's absolutely true and obvious.

Spidey,

Assuming there is a creator 'God'...

What evidence do we have that the 'God' responsible for creating the universe must be the 'God' of Abraham?

Because like some terrorists groups where bombings are concerned, he just claimed responsibility for it.

There are 7 senses.

1. Smell
2.Touch
3. Taste
4. Hearing
5. Sight
6. Knowing where are body is in relation to the rest of are body (touching your nose while your eyes are closed).
7. Knowing where your body is in relation to the earth (gravity).

Spiritual senses do not exist. Not saying something spiritual does not exist just that senses are biologically based not spiritual.

"Well," "that's" "a" "good" "question." "Let" "me" "sleep" "on" "it".

Just kidding, but what's up with the quotes?

There are lots of arguments for God's existence, there is some historical evidence also.

Here is some of the historical evidence. I will just link you to it and you can research any claim you find dubious. I don't have time and a family emergency has my hands full at the moment.

http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/maps/archaeological-and-external-evidence

There are four different kinds of touch, all four use different nerves. They are now considered four senses, not one. There are 10 senses altogether, that are accepted by modern science.

Yep I read that in an earlier post. Sorry but I think they are all grouped under the sense of touch. It is very complex sense with lots of different nerves but still just the sense of touch.

And please do not use the phrase "is accepted by modern science". Because science is not a thing that accepts. Scientists are, and even then you cannot speak for everyone. If you want to provide a scientific source to back up your argument fine, but don't just say all of science supports my view.

I can see that the Bible was written by mortal idiots. There is no need to judge any God.

You're operating on the delusion that the book is the word of some God.

Besides, let's pretend that this God truly does exist and is indeed all-wise and all-righteous as you claim. If that's true then this God would fully understand that I'm not rejecting it, but rather I'm rejecting a grotesque misunderstanding of it's purpose.

Surely you aren't going claim that an all-wise, all-righteous God would blame me for misunderstanding a book that even the best clergy in the world cannot understand. Look at the Jews, Muslim, Catholics, and the many differnet sects of Protestantism. They all disagree with each other about these stories.

And what about all of the Asians who believe in mysticism? And the Wiccans? And the American Indians.

Just how dastardly do you think God is that he would confuse the hell out of his entire creation and pit them all against each other in a game of "Guess which religion is real?"

Come on Spider, get real. That very notion implies an utterly inept God right there.

The dogma of the Middle East simply can't be true. Period. It was a fabrication of sick demented male-chauvinistic pigs. It's religion that divides, not one that brings people together. Even the Christians continually divide, first from Catholicism to Protestantism, and then Protestantism continued to reject each other's views. Any deity associated with such a lame religion would necessarily need to be mentally ill and totally inept. It's not even worthy of discussion.

There's no way it could be of divine origin. It's just not even possible as far as I'm concerned. And even if there was a God associated with it, that God would owe all of humanity one huge apology for having created such a lame and confusing legacy. There's just no way that religion could be associated with an intelligent God. It's just not even feasible at all.

The way I look at it, senses create for an individual a basis of physical orientation. The senses create impulses from stimuli, and they eventually get read by the soul. The soul builds a mental image of its world, (call it holographic if you like, but I won't, for the simple reason of my not knowing what "holographic" means) and this mental image is neither the soul, nor the sum of the stimuli-cum-impulses. It is an intermediary, which has been created by the soul because it's easier to handle and govern and predict than the actual world. The mental image of the world is a generalization of the world, a simplified system that is manageable by the individual's mental capacity.

So when all senses stop functioning, and no stimulus gets detected by the soul, the mental image of the world, the preditcive ability of the individual, the Golem of abstract machiation, still lives on in his mind (predictably; I've never been in that situation, thank gods).

I think it's your question that needs to be re-thought; you have to expand the number of players, instead of forcing every game role on the existing players. You have to create the concept of a stimulus-built but thought- and soul-manipulated model, instead of forcing the functions of this model on the soul or on the stimulus-impulse mechanism.

No. Just plain no. You said that God wouldn't do the flood. You are saying that you know better than God. You cannot rationally reject Christianity because you disagree with some behavior attributed to God. It is clear that a finite being could not understand all of the actions of a supreme being.



Rejecting, out of arrogance and narrow mindedness. You think you are smarter than God, so you refuse to accept him. That's not a very good defense.



Yet, almost all of them honestly and earnestly seek the truth. That's the difference. If someone truly seeks God, that is one thing. To outright say "Because I don't want to believe this, God must not exist" is another thing entirely.



What about them?



There is no need to guess. There are plenty of cosmological and moral arguments for the existence of the Christian God. The Bible is the only historically accurate religious text. The Bible offers prophecies that have been realized. There is no need to guess, only to search for the truth with an open heart and mind.



Once again, you ignore the facts and latch onto a lie. God doesn't require you to guess, you just have to use the gray matter God put between your ears.



Just more of the same old venom and silliness. You should just copy paste this into every post, it would save you a lot of time.

You continually accept the premise that God exists and then reject the belief in God because you disagree with some event recorded in the Bible. It's a logical fallacy to do so. You are still insisting that "No God exists and if one does, I'm smarter and more moral than him!" Pure arrogance.

If you accept the above, then it's easy to see that a person who attained a grasp on the world, not necessarily even a good grasp, will keep on being aware of things even when all his senses stop sending signals to his soul. If, however, a person loses his or her senses before a mental image has been built, then that person has no mental Golem, so to speak, therefore for him the world, himself, or anything else, does not exist. He is not perceiving whatsoever. He is dead alive. A bit in a different way than one in an unconscious state. The dead alive person has his consciousness centre working, it is not blacked out like the mind of a faint. It just has nothign to process, it has nothing to relate anything to anythign else.

This actually has been challenged. They gave a pen and paper to people who had been blind from before birth, and never gained sight. The experimenter told these blind people how drawing works, then asked the blind to cross the fingers on one hand and draw the crossed fingers on paper. I wish I knew how to upload images. The lines (contour lines only) of the finger on the bottom were not drawn in their portions that were covered by the finger on top -- from the point of view of the eyes of the blind man.

In other words, the completely and forever blind drew the picture as if they looked down on their hands and saw the crossed fingers as we see them.

This shocked the world of psychology. All of a sudden we realized that there is more inherent, congenital knowledge for man than we've hitherto thought.

If that was not enough, consider the "blind hallucination". People who go blind late in their lives, they will hallucinate things and see them that way. They are not psychotic, though the experience will scare them. It is indeed a true hallucination.

There is all the reason to believe that a person who is senseless in every aspect from birth, will hallucinate sensations, and will, in fact, build his own Golem, or intermediary mental image of the world that he sees only via sensory hallucinations.