Nope it is logical. I am not abusing this word. The premise is that there is something to be gained be believing and nothing to be lost. If this holds true then yes it is logical. Yes this is the proper use of logic because it is a logical argument.



No you cannot prove they exist or disprove, but unlike your examples the existence of god is something that has seen much scholarly philosophical debate (ontological argument for one). Either choice has been determined valid.




I do not think it cowardly or dishonest if you are forward with your reasoning. It is a place to start. I like the idea of having a spirit and a god, but I have no proof for it. This gives me a logical stand point for pursuing religion. Do I know definitively if god exists..No, but I do pray, and I do ask god to help me to know him/her more.

I also believe that the reason why religions work well if there is no god is because they represent basic truths that apply to all humans. By following them you do become a better person.

How would an existence with the spiritual look different from a universe without it?

well then when you imagine a theory that science is studying that aludes to intelligent design then by all means point me to it. i'm all for learning about new scientific discoveries. but until then i'll consider your question hypothetical.



maybe you don't need to show evidence such as that that led to the discovery of the possibility of a big bang but i won't buy an id theory without such evidence.





could not agree more that the evidence to support the big bang theory takes us back to but a few milliseconds after the big bang occured. indeed we do not know what happened precisely at the time of the big bang.



not hard for you to imagine perhaps. but you left out one word in you id theory that you correctly used in the big bang theory. that word is "evidence". if there is evidence that points to an event of intelligent design as you've admitted that there is evidence that points to a big bang then i'm not aware of such evidence. so it's hardly the same thing. you think that there is a theory of intelligent design but as how i and science defines a theory i've simply never heard such a theory. i gave you hawkings description of a good scientific theory once already but here it is again as you obviously forgot or never agreed with him:

"A good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested. If the predictions agree with the observations, the theory survives that test, though it can never be proved to be correct."

Stephen Hawkings, The universe in a nutshell.




fine. direct me to such a theory and i'll gladly research the testing of the evidence that science has conducted that supports the theory.



i and several scientists including hawking consider the string "theory" to be hypothosis and not theory at all for exactly the reason you suggest. it's simple postulation that warrants further study.



agreed. your point? are you suggesting that theories must always past the test? they often don't after decades of passing other tests. when that happens the theory must be altered to reflect the new predictions. we'll never stop learning.



again we're hung up on what a theory is. i don't consider there to be such a thing as a "spiritual theory". would such a theory be supported by the testing of "spiritual evidence"? yes a scientific theory must be modified if it fails but one test even after centuries of previous testing. such a test failure disproves the theory as hawking stated and the theory must either be abandoned or modified as you say. but to even qualify as a theory in the first place it is necessary to produce evidence that can be tested that supports the theory. if there is some "spiritual method" of testing that spiritual people rely on to support their theories then great, you folks knock yourself out. just don't expect me to put much interest into your "theories" until your evidence withstands the strict scrutiny of scientific methodology.



yes i fully realize that you don't see such a theory as hypothetical. when you produce this theory and i've had a chance to study it and find that it meets my definition of a theory then i'll agree with you that it's not hypothetical. until such occures, it is the very definition of hypothetical.



of course not. i never suggested such. i've always said that delusion refers to a belief that something is fact in spite of evince that suggests an alternative concept. i never said that to consider a possibility is delusional did i?

I want to mention a few things here just to get them out in the open. I do not find the idea of spirit to be logical. I will not refrain from using the terms reasonable, logical, illogical, or a few other terms, including but not limited to those which are the common names for unreasonable thought processess - fallacies. In process of examining claims throughout this discussion, I am going to consciously to the best I can to assess those claims with reason and logic. If anyone here feels like they cannot understand or do not agree that that is how I plan on weighing evidence based upon what is known, and instead will possibly get their feelings hurt, then this is may not be the right thread for you to be participating in.

I like to challenge my own thoughts and others' as well. So this should be seen as that and that alone. I understand that some people may not find the value in questioning beliefs in a very self-invasive way, but please, if this is the case, then by all means you do not have to participate here.

I have already acknowledged the idea that spirit cannot be proven nor disproven when regarding it's existence.

That should be or is the primary premise.

Unless someone has proof of existence, and if that is the case, then perhaps we should begin there.

Well, a non-spiritual universe couldn't contain conscious aware being beings.

I disagree

I feel just the opposite.

I guess Windwalker is right.

This whole thread is going to reduce to nothing more than people continuing to disagree on unprovable opinions.

Nothing can be established one way or the other.

That's the truth. Hopefully no one will be hurt by that truth.

What is to be gained?

Is the possibility of wasting lifetime and building a world-view upon false grounds not to be considered as something to lose?

How would you determine whether or not it holds true?




A choice cannot be valid without showing the grounds, can you do that? I am assuming that I can replace the term choice with the ability to choose one of two equally valid arguments/conclusions.




How does 'I like the idea' equate to a logical standpoint? Pursuing religion does not necessarily equate to an ability to know 'God' if such a thing even exists.



What 'basic truths'? Which rules of which religion make one a better person for following them? Do you think that such rules and/or behaviors are not possible without religions?

Funny how you use the word "Nope" as if you were disagreeing with something I said.



This sounds like an 'appeal to authority' to me. Interesting use of the words 'determined' and 'valid'. By 'valid' maybe you mean 'not possible to prove wrong' ?

You seemed to have presented what appears to you to be an argument for 'equal validity' of belief and non-belief in a God... the argument of "you can't prove it is, and you can't prove it ain't."

My point, which you may have missed, is that the same line of thinking applies to invisible penguins.

So why pretend that "you can't prove it is, you can't prove it ain't" sets all ideas which have that property on equal footing ? It simply doesn't. All it means is that its yet another idea which can't be proven nor dis-proven.




Thats not quite what I meant by 'dishonest', but hey, to each their own.

Personally, I have far more respect for the Christians who feel the call of service to others, who feel the wellspring of Love in their hearts, and are led by this to faith in a deity.




You sound like an agnostic theist. I am concerned that my words may sound flippant, but I am most sincere: I am glad for you. I respect your choices, and I believe that prayer is beneficial. I also believe that, so some extent, prayer is a valid way to 'investigate' truth. (I'm not sure that the truth being investigated extends beyond one's own mind... but its still an investigation of truth.)




I agree, as long as one is following the subset of religions recommendations which have this effect.... there are people out their who cultivate hatred towards atheists, homosexuals, and Christians (if Muslim) and Muslims (if Christian), and all the while believe their are following a religiously inspired recommendation.

False grounds?

Same thing could be said about non-spiritual beliefs. Why waste your time building a world-view on those false grounds?

Whose to say what's on 'false ground'?

That's the whole point?

Who's to say?

I thought you were in agreement that nothing can be proven one way or the other?

If so, then why do you keep speaking about "false grounds"?

Well, the evidence for the Big Bang began by the very simple observations that the universe is expanding. We then extrapolated backward from there.

Just do the very same thing with intelligent design. We observe that we are intelligent. And we've recognized that we evolved naturally to become intelligent. We extrapolate backward and see that DNA must have been an intelligently designed molecule. Then we extrapolate backward and recognize that it's actually the core atoms that make up the DNA molecule that must have been intelligently designed. Then we extrapolate backward from that and recognize that even the mysterious "Quantum Field" that creates atoms with absolute PRECISION must also be intelligently designed, and so forth.

It's pretty simple and should be blatantly obvious. It's really not all that much different than the Big Bang Theory really.

We are closing this topic.