Evidence for God from Science

1over137 wrote:Or not. Atomic bombs, chemical weapons, biological weapons...

Sure... thankfully all of those are illegal, and were outlawed relatively quickly.

Lunalle wrote:

1over137 wrote:Or not. Atomic bombs, chemical weapons, biological weapons...

Sure... thankfully all of those are illegal, and were outlawed relatively quickly.

I wish I had the same faith as you in our world governments, or even humanity for that matter.

Lunalle, what do you think of communism? It was in my country.
Atheistic regime, putting people to jails, sending them to die in gulag, etc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutio ... stern_Bloc

1over137 wrote:Lunalle, what do you think of communism? It was in my country....

I have no experience or information about life in your country, under a government that is labelled as communist. It would be completely unfair for me to say anything about that. It sounds like you've had a bad experience, and I wish it was better.

Despite minor persecution, I have studied communism in detail (That's generally considered the worst thing you can do that is still legal in this country). Right off the bat, I can tell you that every country that has attempted to build a communist society has done it incorrectly. Cuba is pretty close, but not 100%. Unfortunately, the current major political powers of the world are strongly opposed to communism, which makes it impossible to "do it right".

So, we're in a state where we can't completely follow the "rules" of communism. The attempted application of communism throughout history has been pretty bad, overall. However, the actual doctrine of communism is amazing. It isn't perfect, but It is the best system I have ever seen. The question brings to mind what Sam Harris says when he talks about morality. Unfortunately, to make such a drastic shift (say if U.K. or America were to shift from "democracy" to communism), there would need to be a transitional period. The state of the transitional period would be worse than the state we have now (so-called democracy), but would lead to a better state. It's a question of "Do the ends justify the means?"

Tell me Lunalle, are Christians free there in Cuba? Is there freedom of speech?

In my country, writers were silenced, everything was controled, intellectuals were sent to jails. One did not have freedom of religious view. Is this ok?

1over137 wrote:Tell me Lunalle, are Christians free there in Cuba? Is there freedom of speech? In my country, writers were silenced, everything was controled, intellectuals were sent to jails. One did not have freedom of religious view. Is this ok?

There is an incredible amount of freedom in Cuba. There's far more freedom in Cuba than most (if not every) other country, including the "world leaders" (U.S., U.K., Sweden, Canada etc.). Freedom of speech? Absolutely. Free healthcare? Yes. Free education (including post secondary)? Yes. Social programs (like homeless shelters and food banks)? Yes.

I'm wondering if you're thinking of a big enough picture. To change a society, you need to change the rights and freedoms of the people in that society, at least until you get to a point where the old cultural influence is gone.

For example, in certain places in the U.S. over 90% of the people think slavery is fine. These people are the direct descendants of former slave owners, the connection is pretty clear. Now, I'm very against slavery, and most of the world is on the same page. So, should we step in and force our views on them? How about when a group illegally uses chemical warfare? Should we step in and take the chemical weapons, so they can't use them again?

What I think you're asking about (Do the ends justify the means?) has always been decided on an individual basis, as the situations come up. Recently, it has been coming up in North America (especially the U.S.) a lot, and it is a fiercely debated, emotional question, which doesn't necessarily have a "right" answer.

So do the means needed to change a democratic society to a communistic society justify the ends? Well, there's an incredible amount of relevant information to look at. In my opinion, yes it is worth it. There's evidence we are doing it in an extremely slow manner. Hopefully we'll get there one day.

Your examples are vague, and I expect that's because you're not communicating in your primary language (and that's fine, I understand what it is like). I'll try my best to answer though!

Writers were silenced.
Well, I would assume it depends what they write. You had some writers, didn't you? The downside is this is a limitation of the freedom of speech. The upside is that if people stop reading foolish things in books, they're going to stop believing them and acting so foolishly. There are some authors I've read, who I would like to see not be able to publish a book again, but I don't say there should never be any books.

Everything was controlled.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm sorry. A proper communist government is in charge of a lot of things.

Intellectuals were sent to jail.
Ok, well I've said before, that just because you're smart in one area, doesn't mean you're smart in another. A lot of intellectuals in North America are poor and starving. The legal system doesn't care how intelligent you are, it cares about your actions.

One did not have freedom of religious views.
Yeah, this is a big problem with communism for a lot of people. Karl Marx is famously quoted as saying "Religion is the opiate of the masses." I've touched on this before, which upset a lot of people. If you compare the available data between secular and religious countries, the secular countries are better in almost every way (95%+). So, it is a demonstrated fact that religion is oppressive. I expect a lot of people are going to reject that, but it is what it is.

Really, this is about ethics. My personal stance is a fairly strict belief that we should be doing a lot more than we are to improve ourselves, our society, and our type (homo sapiens). It is a giant grey area of morality that is currently at the heart of North American society and politics. As we (countries) grow closer together, it is only going to become more pressing.

Well, I would assume it depends what they write. You had some writers, didn't you? The downside is this is a limitation of the freedom of speech. The upside is that if people stop reading foolish things in books, they're going to stop believing them and acting so foolishly. There are some authors I've read, who I would like to see not be able to publish a book again, but I don't say there should never be any books.

The books are valued very much nowadays in my country. They were not foolish. And, why you mention foolishness of books after I spoke about censorship in my country?

Please answer now the following: If you were a leader of a country would you prohibit books which would seem foolish to you?

Sorry, I think there is some miscommunication. I didn't mean that books are foolish. A lot of books are good and valuable. I try to read from a book every day!

If you were a leader of a country would you prohibit books which would seem foolish to you?

I would prohibit books that hinder social progress, whether or not they seem foolish to me.

I'm worried that you're biased, based on your experience. If you'd rather, we could use a different word than "communism". A lot of people here like doing that. Try to think of it (not what you've experienced, but what it is supposed to be), as a further developed version of democracy.

Just to throw a bit more information out for people who haven't spent much time studying communism:

It is a lot more than just a political party. It is a system designed to provide us all with a high quality of life. It encompasses a lot of things including politics, social interaction, economics, education etc. It is of course, not perfect, and we are nowhere near ready to implement it yet.

Lunalle wrote:Sorry, I think there is some miscommunication. I didn't mean that books are foolish. A lot of books are good and valuable. I try to read from a book every day!

If you were a leader of a country would you prohibit books which would seem foolish to you?

I would prohibit books that hinder social progress, whether or not they seem foolish to me.

I'm worried that you're biased, based on your experience. If you'd rather, we could use a different word than "communism". A lot of people here like doing that. Try to think of it (not what you've experienced, but what it is supposed to be), as a further developed version of democracy.

Let's not confuse democracy with communism..........

Communism can never work properly and neither can democracy, mankind's greed and selfishness will always outweigh the needs of the many or the needs of the many will outweigh the freedom of the individual.

When you say "I would prohibit books that hinder social progress, whether or not they seem foolish to me." this sends shivers down my spine and reminds me of people like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao and many other despots. Whats next eugenics?

The only system that will work is when everyone is loving their neighbor as they love themselves, there would be no need for a government system or police, army, local laws etc.... because we would all be in harmony with each other. Until that time I think democracy is the lesser of two evils, communism gives too much power to a small group of corrupt people, democracy not so much.

Dan

Lunalle wrote:

B. W. wrote:Now on to why I mentioned your father. On one thread you mentioned he was healed in a dramatic way the prevented a lifelong crippling effect. In this report, you seemed calloused toward him. This may be due to many things because there are no perfect families. Good positive families are hard to come by. Negative and broken families come a dime a dozen. Let me digress a bit and come back later to answer your questions.

Sure. Honestly, I am somewhat calloused to him. The fact he's not crippled for life, is awesome for him.

B. W. wrote:There is a reason I ask you about your father since you brought him up is to show you something – was there food on the table, were you ever abandoned by your father and left to fend for yourself, did he ever fail to provide for you while you were growing up? Did he, in the only way he knew how, care for you, teach you things? Was he silent in all this? What caused the split between him and you?

Food? Usually, not very nutritious though. Abandoned? Yes. Fail to provide? Yes. Did he care and teach? To a degree. Was he silent? Usually. What caused the split? Really briefly: His actions showed he cared more about himself and his religion, than his children. The ultimate expression of that was he abandoned me.

Say your father represents humanity – please re-read your answer – what does that say about humanity and your own human attitude toward god. How is it any different?

Lunalle wrote:

B. W. wrote:You stated that you cared but did not love you father. With that, think for a moment that you are God and humanity is represented by your father. With an attitude such as yours, how easy would it be to write him off and let him just fade away? Is that fair and just? Maybe, in your eyes it would be due to all the authority not exercised correctly toward you.

Well, if there is a God, I expect he's already done that. Sure it is fair.

Again taking that your father represents humanity, why would god want anything to do with human beings like that? And you fault god for not performing for you, to your whims?

If you represented god – you would write humanity off. Maybe eliminate them through annihilation?

How could you be a just god, truly all powerful, loving, and can do no wrong? A god who cannot live according these standards is no god and to deny the ability of creative rational beings to think for themselves would also prove such god, not a god at all, due to internal fear and not being all he says he is to himself.

A true God would work through all things and situations that a straying humanity evokes, in order to bring healing and reconciliation to them who freely respond to his calling them back to a better way.

That would take the kind of love mentioned John 3:16-19 all done in an act that shows what human beings really think about God and how we act toward each other. All done in such manner that exposes who abandon whom; all done in order to bring reconciliation, healing, sealing, and restoration of those wayward in a just and fair manner to conscience that awakens them to the need of heartfelt change far above what you could ever conceive or think of.

Now, what would such a just God do with those that continue to partake of not very nutritious food (life styles, philosophies, polls, popular opinion, etc representing food here). That abandoned each other (write others off)? Fail to provide? Teach others the degree that human self is only arbiter of ultimate good? Remain cold silent toward God, unless in dire straits? By whose actions show that they care more about self and what self divines than anything else? Whose definitive expression is to abandon God, and each other?

What should a just God do to those that reject him? What is fair to such folk as this, would it be: Reject them that despise / reject him – in and with all fairness - without doubt all proven by one's demonstrations on this earth to each other and God. And you demonstrated what attitude about your own biological father?

Lunalle wrote:

B. W. wrote:It was that way when humanity fell away from God into disbelief. What did he do? John 3:15-19, NASB...

So, I don't believe in God, I don't think John 3:16 is true, so not sure why I should take the rest of the passage into any serious consideration. I know what you're telling me, I've read the bible many times, I've even preached from it. I don't think it is right. I don't accept what it says, on faith, or on any other basis.

You would write off your father, and you would not even die to save his life. Your love is shallow and selfish, vindictive, conditional, authoritative, demanding, whose love seeks to steal faith away from people all due to a grudge against your earthly father who you wrongly compare to what god is like. A god made in the human image of your earth bound father and your own imaginations. No different are you from your dad in the treatment of others is there?

Lunalle wrote:

B. W. wrote:This kind of faith works by love. The kind humanity lacks. To show this, would you die in order to heal your father thus restoring the relationship broken between you and he?

You already know I wouldn't, because you already know I don't love him. If you want to say the world needs more love, great. I agree with that. Although, that's a lot different than both the common label of "Christian", and the actual doctrines.

B. W. wrote:Do you measure up to that in your relationship with your father?

Again, no.

Amazing how God acted with grace toward your dad, forgiving / releasing him from all his mistakes and errors committed against you so much so that he, once crippled, is now healed without any logical reason for his healing other than God’s loving Grace demonstrated.

Yet, you - by your own words would not lift a finger of forgiveness and heal the rift between you two. In fact, write him off so you can remain in your delusions of Marxist utopia, your concept of heaven, you desire to cram down everyone’s throat for their own good.

Let’s say, your dad is forgiven and healed by God – he offers that same to you. Can you stop mirroring your life history with your family into your interpretation of what God is like?

Can you let go of your faith in communism? You demonstrate such faith in your writings to Hana on this very thread. Hana, a person who lived in communism and knows firsts hand that it can never be improved. You say faith is delusional and yet, you exercise faith in your own ideas and dreams and knowledge. You do have Faith in yourself - so would that make you delusional too?

Lunalle wrote:

B. W. wrote:What is the focus of your faith?

I attempt to have as little faith as possible. I exercising just enough of it, to lead a relatively "normal" life. E.x. I do things, because I have faith I'm more than just a brain in a vat, although I accept it is possible.

Now, my answer is science. So I'd like you to appreciate science a bit more. Science doesn't claim ultimate, or divine knowledge. It says "This is our best understanding right now". The application of science is used to make the world a better place. For example, the things encompassed in the Theory of Evolution are applied to develop vaccines. Yes, it operates off a minimal set of presuppositions. It's goal is to make things better, and further develop knowledge, so we can make things even better. It's not static, it is constantly evolving, and improving. I hope that helps cast it in a better light, and people will realize the importance of science.

How do you define a normal life - you have faith in a normal life? Who is it that is going to define what it is? is it Neo-Marxism that defines normal and what is not normal - is that your savior?

Lunalle wrote: I would prohibit books that hinder social progress, whether or not they seem foolish to me.

I'm worried that you're biased, based on your experience. If you'd rather, we could use a different word than "communism". A lot of people here like doing that. Try to think of it (not what you've experienced, but what it is supposed to be), as a further developed version of democracy.

Who defines neo Marxism and its norms - You? Marx's??? Engals, Lennin? Saul Alinsky, Van Jones. George Soros, US Department of Edcation? Obama? Hmmm... Faith in a normal life – what is it; you despising the word – faith – yet in all you written, you show faith in Marxism and selfish impositions of your will upon others. You have faith in science but fail to realize that even science alone cannot change the hate and grudges within the human heart.

Maybe you are a victim of the Word of Faith Movement cult or the cult of Christian Science that caused this. Who knows??

As for hard science – are you falsely accusing me and others here on this Forum of not appreciating science on this the Evidence for God From Science website? Wow, ignorance of socialism's communistic goals is astonishing that is coming from you as evidenced by your post to Hana before this post. No wonder its idea/philosophy has killed more people than any other source in history. There is no way to improve it – why – human nature. Look in the mirror and see the tyrant looking back at you who falsely thinks people who believe in God as anti-science and anti-intellect.

Lunalle wrote:

B. W. wrote:Human Faith is misapplied and twists away from God and seeks other things to place faith in, such as science, atheism, what one creates, etc and etc.

I disagree.

B. W. wrote:We all create things such as ideas, illusions in the mind, suspicion, doubt, fears, revenge, etc, and place great faith in these. You see, a person is committed to whatever they place their faith in and are obedient to it, often at all cost.

Yes, and I think that's usually dangerous.

B. W. wrote:So what have you placed great faith in?

A set of basic concepts that let me live a fairly "normal" life. E.x. We're not all brains in a jar, running a simulation of our lives.

You disagree that ' Human Faith is misapplied and twists away from God and seeks other things to place faith in, such as science, atheism, what one creates, etc and etc' and yet you state it is dangerous to 'create things such as ideas, illusions in the mind, suspicion, doubt, fears, revenge, etc, and place great faith in these.... committed to whatever they place their faith in and are obedient to it, often at all cost' then postulate the glories of Neo-Marxist thought... hmmm...

Yes it is very dangerous – look in the mirror and you just may see the danger but look around...

...Your father not crippled, and still your faith submerged in Marxist utopiansim.

Amazing...
-
-
-

B.W. you've written a lot of things that appear to be accusations. I'm fine with that, but I wonder why? I'll try to touch on most of what you've said.

You compare my attitude toward my father to that of my attitude toward God. I don't think that is fair, because God is not a father figure to me, but my dad is.

You compare me to God, then ask how am I just? I am neither God, nor just in all things. You go on to ask what a just God would do. My answer is absolutely nothing, because objective just action cannot be based on another's subjective action.

You accuse me of writing off my father so I can remain delusional. I object. My basis for writing off my father is the evidence of his actions. I am very open to having my beliefs questioned, as questioning brings us closer to truth.

Similarly, my rejection of religion is not based on my life history with my family, but study of the evidence of what effect religion has on society.

I think you are playing fast and loose with the term faith. I have no faith in communism, I have knowledge of it, and have applied critical thinking skills to that knowledge. Hana has lived under a government claiming to be communist, but were in actuality not. I have offered to use a different term, out of respect.

Depending which definition of faith we are using, it may or may not be synonymous of delusion. I don't have delusional faith in myself, as I don't claim to be infallible.

An example of having enough faith to have a normal life. Science tells us that most matter is actually empty space, yet we have faith that matter interacts with other matter. For example, when I go to pick up a cup, I exercise faith that my hand will be able to grasp the cup, and that it won't pass through it, even though both the hand and the cup are mostly empty space.

This conversation seems to be getting absurd. The dictionary (my preference is Oxford) defines normal. Where did "savior" come from? What is the danger? What am I being saved from? I reject the whole notion. I'm not being saved. I am going to die.

Who defines Marxism? Marx. I'm not talking about Marxism though. I'm talking about a system with the goal of providing the highest possible quality of life for the vast majority of humans. Anyone is free to contribute, so long as it passes peer review.

I've never heard of either of those cults, so I doubt I'm a victim of them, but it is possible.

If anything I accuse people here of not being truly religious. I do accuse a lot of people of not appreciating science enough. This is mostly due to the poor quality of our respective education systems. However, as this website is "Evidence for God From Science" I'm interested in what people know about science, and what evidence for God they are willing to provide.

You accuse me of being ignorant of communistic goals, when I have spent approx. 3 years studying them. I accuse you of the same ignorance, and based on my 3 years of study, I reject your accusation of ignorance. I dismiss your further claims.

So, we agree faith is dangerous? Great! Let's not have faith then. (Again, I'm pretty sure you're playing fast and loose with the term faith).

You changed the definition of faith AGAIN?!

Amazing....

Lunalle wrote:
There is an incredible amount of freedom in Cuba...Free healthcare? Yes. Free education (including post secondary)? Yes. Social programs (like homeless shelters and food banks)? Yes.

This kinda strikes me as ironic. I tried to explain to you that salvation is a free gift. Free to all who trust Christ. Salvation is free to us because Christ paid the price in full. You couldn't seem to grasp that. Yet, you say healthcare and education are free in Cuba. Who do you think pays for the "free" healthcare and "education"? The healthcare is under control of the state, so the state dictates what healthcare you receive. The education system is under the control of the state. So the state tells them what they need to know.

So, is it really free? I say it's the furthest thing from "free". In both of these meanings of free:

1.not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.

And

2.without cost or payment.

Hey Rick! You're right, they're not 100% free, and as I said, Cuba is not 100% communist.

It is free in the sense that you do not have to directly pay for the services provided. For example I haven't been able to earn a doctorate in philosophy yet, because I do not have enough money to pay the required tuition. However, if I lived in Cuba, I wouldn't be forced to pay tuition. I'd be free to earn a doctorate in philosophy.

Hopefully this example clarifies the use of the word free, which you don't seem to understand. Remember, nothing in life is really free.

Lunalle wrote: Now, my answer is science. So I'd like you to appreciate science a bit more. Science doesn't claim ultimate, or divine knowledge. It says "This is our best understanding right now". The application of science is used to make the world a better place. For example, the things encompassed in the Theory of Evolution are applied to develop vaccines. Yes, it operates off a minimal set of presuppositions. It's goal is to make things better, and further develop knowledge, so we can make things even better. It's not static, it is constantly evolving, and improving. I hope that helps cast it in a better light, and people will realize the importance of science.

Nobody is questioning the importance of science. It's "Science" that they're wary of. Science, one of the many stratagems adopted by man to find truth in our existence, has become the center of a popular modern philosophical view that rejects all other forms of truth-seeking. In my opinion, such a view is exceedingly arrogant if adopted by an actual scientist and blind faith if adopted by a non-scientist.