but how would one go about checking up on the claims of what was happening THOUSANDS of years ago? should it all be discarded because current science cant or hasnt backed it up?


Science is limited,, a great tool, but it really is mostly period based,that is to say scientists look to answer questions that direct the CURRENT system of things,,,,,in a thousand years from now, I am sure new science will have been created and many will ask how we could believe the things that CURRENT science has proven....

Are you talking about historic events, on earth - interactions amongst human beings?

This is a sketchy business, no doubt!



Discarded? This is not an 'all or nothing' proposition. I think we ought to acknowledge the limits of our knowledge.

I personally view all of history with a degree of skepticism, but I don't discount it completely.



No doubt!



There is truth in what you say here, but its not absolute.

In astronomy we can directly observe, in real time, in present time: events that happened long ago, because of the finite speed of light.

In geology, archeology, and similar fields, we can very carefully draw inferences - just like forensics scientists can carefully draw inferences at crime scenes.



It is very common for people to incorrectly confused the history of human beliefs with the history of real, evidence based science, and to overstate the errors that scientists have made in the past. Newtonian physics is still useful, and we still respect the evidence and reasoning by which people arrived at these beliefs. I think the distant future they will say the same thing...we were wrong back in the 21st centaury, but we had good reason to believe what we believe.


Edit: Oh, and if we've truly proven it, it might very well remain recognized-as-true and proven forever. Its also common for lay people to think that all scientific beliefs are considered to be 'proven' by scientists.

Most things we believe,, we believe we have GOOD REASON to believe,,,lol

I think religion is a way for people with SIMILAR ideas to conjugate,, just like those with similar interest in sports can join a team,, or those with similar political interests can register an affiliation



religion is a way to document similar affiliation to one set of beliefs or the other,,,it never was or will be a way to turn any group of people into perfect citizens or even perfect humans,,they will still be fallable, start wars, cause harm, promote evildoings,,, but others will also start charities, bring about peace, and promote unity and love,,,,,,,,,like in life where we will never have good without bad,, we will have both in religion as well

I've questioned the claims of science on many occassions. And yes I have gone through the experiments and mathematics with a fine-tooth comb trying to PROVE science wrong. What always ended up happening is that I finally had to concede that they were indeed correct.

In fact, there are actual examples of this within science itself. Probably the most famous example is that of John Stewart Bell. He believed in an objective universe and agreed with Einstein that "God does not play dice". So he set out to prove his own beliefs. What happened was that he proved just the opposite! He proved that his belief could not possibly be correct. Fortunately for all of us, he was honest enough to actually publish his findings. He proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

That's not the only case like this in science. Many scientists set out to prove one thing, and end up proving just the opposite of what they had hoped to prove.



Be very careful about telling people that God's wisdom is so great we can't understand it. That could give people justification to do horrible things in God's name and they'll just say, "Well, God is wiser than us, and this is what he commanded us to do in his book." That was precisely the kind of justification that was used in the crusades and witch hunts.

No way. Claiming that God's word is wiser than any human can imagine is just asking for trouble! Especially considering the nature of the what's printed in the book that you're claiming is the "word of God"!

That kind of mentality is precisely what makes the book so DANGEROUS!

The idea that it's the "Word of God" and therefore it needs no justification!

That's baloney.

oh, I am not making a statement about the need of justification. I am making a statement about the Wisdeom and Base of God,, who would indeed be on a whole other plane of understanding. Yes, some will take that and use it for justification for terrible things,, but that is their PERSONAL choice to misuse or their misfortune to misunderstand.

As a child, I knew my parents wanted the best for me, and were to be trusted, and were wiser than I could EXPECT to be as a child. I consider myself in the spiritual plane to be very much that child when compared to my spiritual Father. He doesnt need to be justified for me anymore than what my Parents told me or did while I was a child needed to be justified, because of my Faith that he loves me, just like my faith that they loved me, and my instinct that HE would do nothing to harm me(speaking spiritually) anymore than my biological parents would.

I think there will always be people who are at different states of consciousness. As they say, when the student is ready the teacher will appear.

The truth about that is, the teacher is always at hand. The student who is not ready just can't see the teacher.

I think the world today has many people reaching and ready for more than what they have been getting from a 2000 year old book. They are reaching for personal enlightenment and personal power. They want freedom, not just to feel safe or saved. They want to co-create, not just to live happily ever after in some perfect paradise.

Well, I think of "God" in the same way.

I guess I've just been able to seperate the idea of God from any specific manmade fables is all.

But I do understand people's need for specific archetypes. So I actually do understand why you cling to that particular story. You've concretely associated that story with God and that's the end of the story as far as you're concerned.

I understand, I truly do.

Nope, and that goes for the easter bunny, and several others too

Faith based upon the spoken words -- from millenium to millenium -- is a bit hypothetical, it seems. On the other hand, there's a written record -- The Bible! Well, consider the facts:

___________________UNDENIABLE FACTS_______________
1. The bile is at least 6,000 years old!
2. The knowledge has been verbally passed from generation to generation... until the written word has been invented;
3. The Printing Press was invented in the mid 15th century
4. 6000-1550=4450 -- that's how long the Book has been manually copied by various "dilligent" people...

Can you imagine how many omittions, deletions, personal additions and translations has been committed during 4,450 years???!!!

Anfortunately, the original has been lost, so there is no way of determining the authenticity of even the most ancient manuscript!

Seems like Religion is more of a custom (a Tradition) rather than a specific story of the way of life!

I once tried to prove Santa did not exist but he kept turning up on street corners ringing bells.

Well, the totally false argument that is given by the religious people is that the Bible is "God's Word" therefore God himself insured that the stories remained in tact perfectly, and that King James was finally "choosen by God" to put only "God's Word" in print.

Of course that's obviously false, for several reaons. First, it's false because there exist several versions of the Bible, there also exists the Torah, and the Quaran. They can't all be the verbatim word of God since they all don't agree with each other.

Finally on the Christian side of things we have the Catholics and the Protestants. The Protestants protested against the Catholic interpretations of the Bible. That's why they are called "Protestants" (i.e. Protest-ants)

So they decided to create their own personal interpretations and this is also why there are so many denominations of protest-ants. They even protest against each other!

Yet the Protestants are the most obnoxious when it comes to things like proselytizing and evangelizing the so-called "Word of God". However by the time they get done with interpreting the Bible can it even be called the "Word of God". Seems to me it should be called "The Word of the interpreting Protestants".

It's disgusting as a 'divine' picture, IMHO. I wouldn't trust anything the Bible has to say anymore than I would trust the National Inquirer. It's clearly nothing more than the gibberish of men.

Male-chauvinistic men to boot!

My Friend,

I dont think you asked this question out of ignorance. I think you asked it because you know the TRUTH. By saying that we should not quote the bible, it means that you know that the words in the bible are TRUE and are not from man. The bible has 66 books and 40 different authors. What the author in the first book of Genesis said agrees with the author in the last book of revelation. Is really hard to prove to you that what am saying is true without quoting the bible.

You are created to believe in something by faith and your heart can NEVER stay void. Out of everything that exist on earth, only man can, has and will continue to do things that other animals can never be able to do. Why am I saying this, YOU, who wants a prove of God, just know you did just begin to exist like magic, a power greater than you must have thought of you. And one day, when you dont exist anymore, you will meet with that power(God).

When you look at the mirror, you cannot add or delete anything that you see, meaning...you are powerless without the one who created you. Neither, your parents who bore you can make any changes to you.

Is only man who has been created with a concious, and that concious we like to call it sixth sence. But in the real world, its the Spirit. Deep down in your concious, YOU KNOW THE TRUTH. So you must such the truth. I don't see why you want prove of God, Can we prove that you exist? For example, if you did not ask this question i would never have known if you exist. But i now know that you are there, alive because you wrote the question. So, how can I prove you exist? By your writing in this forum. HOW DO WE KNOW THAT GOD EXIST, BY HIS WRITING IN THE BIBLE. YOU WANT TO HEAR GOD, READ WHAT HE HAS WRITTEN.

Then, and only then, can I be able to prove to you that THAT THE WORDS in the Bible are HIS.

Happy Reading....

spoken(typed) like an elder at the church,,,,beautiful reading,,,thank you

The only problem with this statement is that if this is your logic, then it must also apply to the God that you are speaking of. In other words, if that God magically exists, then it too must have been the thought of an even higher being.

I actually agree with part of what you are saying, only from an Eastern Mystics point of view. If you exist, it's because you are the one who is creating your own existence. This is basically the Eastern view. We are the "God" that we seek.

In fact, this is totally in-line with the teachings of Jesus, "Have I not said, ye are gods?".

I personally believe that Jesus was a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva, everything he taught is in perfect harmony with that school of thought.

You're argument goes like this:

1. Since we exist there must be a higher being that created us

But you refuse to demand that this higher power then also must then require a higher power to exist by the same reasoning, ad-infinitum.

Then you jump to a totally unwarranted conclusion.

2. Since this higher power must exist, then the Bible must be HIS WORD.

Why? Why not just say, since this higher power must exist then Greek Mythology must be true, or any other creation fable?

There's absolutely no logical connection between the idea that a higher power must exist and the idea that Bible must be the correct fable. In fact, these very same arguments could be made for the Torah, Quaran, or any other creation tale including the tales of Wanka Tanka of the American Indians.

I actually think you hit the nail on the head with your very first observation. We exist, therefore we must be God. That's Eastern Mysticsim basically.

Besides, even if we imagine ourselves to be something "Other" than God, then guess what? That very idea makes us gods in our own right. Because after all, if we aren't God, then we must be sepeart entities from God. Be if we are seperate entities from God, then we must be gods ourselves!

That may seem funny, but it's true.

We can't hardly be "seperate" from God without becoming gods in our own right. And if we aren't seperate from God, then that means that we must be God.

So just as the Bible says, "I am that I am".

And just as Jesus taught, "Ye are gods".

But this is the same thing that Buddha taught, Buddha just used slightly different language. "Tat Tvam Asi" (You are that)

You are the divine being that you seek.

There is no jealous judgemental Zeus-like Godhead who is appeased by blood sacririces or who will send individuals into eternal damnation. If a person creates eternal damnation for themselves, that was there own choice. It's the law of Karma that applies to all of ye that are gods. Just as Jesus had quite wisely taught.

Ms Harmony,

You've made some rather silly correlations between an evidence based scientific investigation into the natural world, and the old belief that the earth is flat. You've even suggested that it had been repeatedly 'proven' that the earth is flat.

Point me to the documents in which the earth was 'proven' to be flat (and not simply given an upper bound on curvature), and I will show you the difference between evidence based science and baseless philosophic conjecture.

Please, show me.


------------


Now if this statement:



Was in response to this statement:



Then again, I failed to be clear. Your statement is essentially an comment on a contributing factor to our tendency to delude ourselves. We all tend to believe we have good reason for what we believe, even when we don't. Its our nature; our pride plays a role, our attachments to our beliefs plays a role, our need for stability and certainty may play a role...

Thats not the point. You seemed to be suggesting that one day we will learn how completely wrong our current science is, and laugh at our current ignorance. In a sense, this might be true, but not in the same sense as the way we look back on those who - despite living in an era of shipping on the high seas - still believed the earth was was flat. Rather, it will be in the same sense that we (respectfully) look back on as those who once believed in newtonian physics as the end-all for the physics of motion.

The flat-earthers were not open minded experimentalists; their worldview was based on their immediate observations and the casual, ignorant acceptance of the worldviews of others. Had they been skeptics, and had they attempted to verify this claim experimentally, they would have discovered that the earth is not flat - all they had to do was go out on a shipping vessel and watch the way that distant, tall objects disappeared below the horizon. I believe that many did, and that many correctly concluded the earth was round - but they lived in a cultured that valued 'the opinions of authority' and 'common knowledge' rather than experimental evidence and reason. We still have that culture lingering today. Sometimes, you argue in favor of that culture.

The Newtonian physcists, on the other hand, did arrive at their position through the deliberate collection of evidence, and the careful application of reason, and though they were wrong in the end, they were correct within a 0.00001% tolerance for the speeds that they were working with. And, in everyday life - today, and 1,000 years from now - applying that same 'wrong' (incomplete) newtonion model is and will be the right (intelligent) thing to do, to get the right answer.

These two forms of 'being wrong' are simply not comparable. I'm claiming that when we (as a species) look back and smile at how wrong we were in the 20th and 21st centauries, it will be in the newtonian physics sense of being wrong, not the flat earther sense of being wrong.

This is what I meant when I said:



This is not about the common practice of people deluding themselves into thinking they have good reason for their beliefs; I'm asserting that our current experiment, evidenced based approach to truth will stand the test of time - as the newtonians did (and as the flat eathers didn't) - even if we arrive at intermediate flawed conclusions along the way.

Bacog, welcome to the site!



Really? Thats what it means when a person says they don't want quotes from the bible? No other interpretation or motive is possible? This is a very convenient belief you have.



I'm going the guess that the OP doesn't care about this; thats part of why he asked you not to quote from the bible.




In a sense I agree - however we have come to exist - it is our nature to have certain emotional inclinations. If nothing else, it helps us to bond with others in our group, to have shared motivations/activities, to coordinate our group activities (respect for leadership, etc).



You're a bit free with that word 'never'. I think you are wrong. Simply, completely wrong. I'm guessing you are neither a fan of science fiction, nor an avid reader of popular, science-focused media/periodicals.



I see a list of clauses strung together: are you claiming that we did come to exist by magic (God), or could't have come to exist by magic (and by false dichotomy -> must be God) ?



Maybe you meant 'when you look deep inside yourself' rather than 'when you look in the mirror'. This sounds like an argument from the 1940s - probably could use an rewrite for this era of plastic surgery.




Could be true; or could be a typically narcissistic human belief.

Are you so sure? Do you know so much about the minds of, say, apes and dolphins?




Another great example for why skepticism is so important...seriously, you have no idea whether 'he' really exists. Maybe I created that account and posted that question - you'd have to go to great lengths to determine if that were true. You seem to be happy concluding 'he' is there and alive on very little evidence.



Oh, but I thought you (more sanely) stated that the bible had 40 different authors? Personally, I'm skeptical. I don't take the bible's existence as proof of those 40 distinct historical persons; but sure, if the words are written then some physical being had to write them. So, wait, so how is this evidence of the supernatural?

I definately believe in god, everytime I look on the mirror I see him!

bacog,

You are a sweet lady, I can tell by your words and your picture. Here is my reply to your post.

First you said that 40 different authors wrote the Bible then you said that God wrote the Bible. God did not write the Bible if 40 different authors wrote the Bible.

Or maybe you want to call these authors "ghost writers." LOL Or better yet, writers for the "Holy ghost."

Yes I know, they were allegedly "inspired by God." I have certainly heard that before.

But do you know what it is like to be inspired by God? I do! I am inspired every day. So can everything I write be said to have been written by God? Are my oil painting painted by God? I don't see why not. I see that God inspires a lot of people to do and write a lot of things.

That may be because God works through us and lives in us and we are, in effect God Itself.

I think what you've touched on here can be quite complex.

For example, I would suggest that not eveything that humans do is "inspiried by God". On the contrary this is what most religious teachings are all about from Jesus to Buddha, and via many other sages, even wise teachers who live amoung us today.

The message seems to be quite simple actually, yet it also seems to be quite difficult for many people to comprehend.

There are two ways we can live our lives. We can become self-centered and motivated by selfish motivations. This is what the sages call "ego". Or we can be motivated spontaneously by what's natural for the good of all. That would be to 'follow God'.

This is what Buddha taught in the form of "Right Choises" and Right Actions". Jesus used terminology that fit in with the culture that he was attempting to teach. So he spoke in terms of following the will of the Father. But he also made it clear that He and the father are ONE (as is true for all humans), this is why he also stated, "Ye are also gods".

This idea that Jesus was the "Only begotten son of God" is actually contrary to the message that Jesus was attempting to teach. Morever, Jesus HIMSELF never taught any such thing! All that baloney was the opinions of those authors who make erroneous claims about Jesus.

That's why the gospels can't even be trusted to be the "word of Jesus" because much of what the authors of the gospels claim never even came from Jesus (even but those authors own admission!)

For example Matthew makes a very long drawn out case trying to prove that Jesus was the son of God. But if you read those writtens it's clear that this is merely his agenda and opinion and NOT an account of what Jesus had actually taught or even claimed.

Jesus taught that he and the Father are ONE and that whatever you do to your brother you do to HIM! Well, duh? Is that not the very same thing as saying that everyone is indeed God?

It sure sounds that way to me. This idea that Jesus was the unique son of some Zeus-like ancient blood-thirsty godhead sent to be cruficied to pay for the sins of man just doesn't wash. It doesn't even jive with what Jesus actually taught!

I'd like to enlighten all of you, sinners, who doubt His presence:
In this world you cannot know God because, as dear bacog mentioned above:
Which means you will have your proof Only after you parish!!! (i.e. not in your life * * *)

Therefore, PRAY, you sinners!!! He does not accept non-believers (especially without a previously scheduled appointment)!!!

. .................. on the other hand..............
there's an inteesting thought:

From the Reincarnation point of view, there must me some sort of the commitee for re-distributing the spirits(?) Could God be the head of that commitee??? (He might pick your spirit from the very back of the line of the spirits awaiting the re-assignment -- -- right into the front of the line!!! But the only reason He would do you such a favor depends upon whether you've been praying hard during the whole of your earthly life!!!