Do You Believe In God?

[apt-get]

Faith is beyond science. Belief without limitations.

Science on the other hand only reflects the limits of man's alleged understanding at a specific point in time. To exclusively rely on unproved or partial conclusions of the immediate present is inherently flawed logic. Putting two and two together to get five and trying to sell it as something else.

Unless of course someone can post a link to an internationally recognized scientific body who has categorically proven that God does not exist. Which admittedly would be rather big news in the civilized world.

Wake me up when the scientific community officially and cohesively states as scientific fact that God does not exist. Until then, you are all free to state your faith in science or faith in God.

Faith is not a legitimate method of inquiry and understanding. It has no self-corrective nature, nor does it have a way to determine the difference between ideas being right and being wrong. Not only is it belief without limitations, but it is belief without standards. Why should I respect faith as valid?

Also, the fact that you are using the term "faith in science" in a sentence shows that you do not have a basic understanding of how science works or that your opinion on this particular matter is worth listening to. The same can be said by your usage of the words "proof" and "proven" in regards to how science works.

 

[apt-get]

Without dragging my own personal attitudes regarding the issue of faith into the conversation, I don't see how the speed of unconscious decisions in the brain is related in any way to the question, "Do we have a soul?"

If there was a soul that is in charge of our conscious experience, then when looking at when decisions are formed, we would see the timing of these decisions in the brain occur at or after when the person is consciously aware of them. The fact that decisions can be predicted noticeably before a person is aware of having made them shows that there cannot be some soul in charge of our conscious experience, which includes decision making. Our conscious experience is all physical and controlled by the brain.

 

[apt-get]

Huge point. A core concept that goes so much further than just this mere thread alone.

Why must everything be assessed only from a polarized point of view?

Who says anything is being polarized? Why not just look at things by looking at their factual merit and supporting evidence?

 

[Judge]

Why not just look at things by looking at their factual merit and supporting evidence?

That's just another polarized point of view. You're going in circles.

There are more ways of looking at the world we exist in than yours alone.

 

[Ereth]

If there was a soul that is in charge of our conscious experience, then when looking at when decisions are formed, we would see the timing of these decisions in the brain occur at or after when the person is consciously aware of them. The fact that decisions can be predicted noticeably before a person is aware of having made them shows that there cannot be some soul in charge of our conscious experience, which includes decision making. Our conscious experience is all physical and controlled by the brain.

This is your interpretation of what a soul is and is not. This study might refute that interpretation, but yours is also the only interpretation for which your argument, and its cited evidence, makes any sort of sense. So I'm afraid I can't view it as much proof of anything else beyond that.

 

[Peter A.]

Proof only exists in mathematics. For everything else, evidence is used. Anyone who asks for proof in the context of science simply has no clue as to what they are talking about. Science works with evidence, and it is by far the most reliable method of understanding how the world works. Faith is not even close to being a valid method of understanding, and faith-based conclusions are not worthy of respect.

When it comes to the notion of a soul, we can measure and predict conscious decisions 7-10 seconds before they happen. If there were a soul, measurements like this would be completely impossible. The fact that this can be done clearly and concisely shows that souls do not exist.
Research | Research news | 2008 | Unconscious decisions in the brain

Hey, we agree on something. Yes, 'proofs' are for the mathematicians only, they should not be searched for within science. Seven to ten seconds sounds like a VERY long time (have these findings been confirmed by others?), and the article itself makes no mention of the implications that such findings have on whether or not there is a 'soul', so from this you cannot conclude that 'souls do not exist'. That's rather premature. The date on the article is 14th April 2008, which was a long time ago in research terms. What has been discovered since? There appear to be no links to other research institutions or websites that touch upon this issue (apart from one they mention - 'Nature Neuroscience'), and their methodology is absent; from the information given, I would not be able to replicate their results because of the profound lack of details given. By the way, the actual time given - 'In contrast, Haynes and colleagues now show that brain activity predicts even up to 7 seconds ahead of time how a person is going to decide.' - UP TO 7 seconds. The article in question does not mention 'ten seconds'. Where did you get that figure from?

The article concludes with the words:
'But they also warn that the study does not finally rule out free will: "Our study shows that decisions are unconsciously prepared much longer ahead than previously thought. But we do not know yet where the final decision is made. We need to investigate whether a decision prepared by these brain areas can still be reversed."'
so all we can say with any certainty is that the Max Planck Institute came up with some rather interesting results approximately 6 years ago that suggested the time required, under strict laboratory conditions, for a person to make a choice was rather unusual and unforeseen.

 

[Peter A.]

Faith is beyond science. Belief without limitations.

That, right there, is the big problem with faith. It has no boundaries, it trusts all, believes all, and all because it wants to, because it 'feels right' (apparently).

Wake me up when the scientific community officially and cohesively states as scientific fact that God does not exist. Until then, you are all free to state your faith in science or faith in God.

With whom (or is it 'who'? - I keep getting these two mixed up) does the burden of providing evidence lie? With the one making the claim, of course. It is not the job of 'the scientific community' to investigate phenomena and test hypotheses that others, who are not directly involved in the issue at hand, believe, based upon faith, to be true. No one can say for sure that 'God does not exist', but through an examination of what we can access (i.e. physical reality) we can reach a tentative position whereby we can state with a certain degree of confidence that, 'Based upon the evidence gathered, and the logical coherence of God as defined by X, we can say that God almost certainly does (or does not) exist, although we are always open to a re-interpretation of the evidence we have and that this conclusion of ours does not include other workable definitions of God that others may have, and which they may present to us if they so choose'.

Science, being based as it is upon fallible humanity, does have its limits, but that is not a bad thing because it is partly because of these limitations that it works so well. It cannot investigate what many label 'the supernatural', but then 'the supernatural' is, by definition, beyond the physical and therefore outside the scope of science. However, if you are one to believe in the supernatural then I ask that you provide your reasons for doing so, and I ask that you do not become upset if I happen to reject those reasons. Remember: the burden of evidence lies with the claimant.

 

[Christy]

My faith is based on the fact that I have experienced something, and therefore I am convinced. I usually do not participate in these sorts of discussions because I cannot provide the proof demanded, and other people will not accept my experience as proof enough for them to believe. I have absolutely no issue with this as I also would not believe anything based on the experience of another person.

The issue I have with these sorts of discussions is that my experience is discredited. People who do not believe assume that 1) I am a liar, 2) I have not interpreted my experience correctly (i.e. it was a trick of light, or a glitch in the electrics of my brain etc), or 3) I’m insane or stupid. My right to experience this life as I actually do is removed because they do not believe in my faith.

What any of us believe is based on who we are and what we have experienced. If you don’t believe, then evidently you’ve not experienced something to convince you. If you do believe, then evidently you have experienced something to convince you. Both perspectives are valid.

Respect for all people and their opinions is paramount regardless of whether you are convinced in their beliefs or not. Perhaps the discussion would be more beneficial to address the question of WHY people believe rather than trying to prove it, as I believe this “proof” discussion to be futile. Mind you, my experiences are personal and I am not likely to start this angle of discussion.

 

[MoCoffee]

Okay people...this thread is "do you believe in God, NOT prove the existence or non-existence of God. Maybe this thread should be renamed, so that the people who just want to answer the actual question asked don't have to read all these argumentative posts.

 

[Ereth]

Argumentative? No, not really. I think people have been quite civil, given the circumstances. As I said before, I believe there is plenty of room in the world for multiple forms of belief and lack of belief. Whatever my personal opinions are on this thing called God, I respect that other people's may be different.

 

[MoCoffee]

Argumentative? No, not really. I think people have been quite civil, given the circumstances. As I said before, I believe there is plenty of room in the world for multiple forms of belief and lack of belief. Whatever my personal opinions are on this thing called God, I respect that other people's may be different.

I truly am sorry if I offended anyone with my "argumentative" comment. I have an intense fear of confrontation, so may have over reacted to the attempts by different people to prove that their view makes the most sense. Carry on!

 

[Ereth]

Don't sweat it, Mo. I'm not exactly the biggest fan of confrontation myself . . . but somehow I end up in debates anyway. :rolleyes2:

 

[tridianprime]

Without dragging my own personal attitudes regarding the issue of faith into the conversation, I don't see how the speed of unconscious decisions in the brain is related in any way to the question, "Do we have a soul?"

For people of faith, the idea of a soul tends to go along with whatever that faith is. For people without faith, the soul is a human construct, designed to provide us some measure of comfort after death---that we are more than just the flesh and bone that will ultimately break down and return to the earth.

I don't see why there isn't room in this world for both.

In response to the last part. Faith held us back from advancing technically for hundreds of years before the 1400 s and it continued long after that. Granted it has been different but it is tok unpredictable and you can't use such a dynamic model based on pure faith to live by because it can disrupt furthering of our technology and understanding.


The idea of a soul is preposterous. We know how our conscious and unconscious minds work- via electrical impulses etc. sending signals through neurones and this idea of a conscious mind is really just a complex computer- an advanced AI.

People can believe whatever nonsense they like so that they feel better about death but that is because people are scared. They need to accept everyone dies and faith doesn't make you string it covers up your weakness. However, if somebody tries to make predictions or decisions based on faith then they must be stopped immediately because it has no place in modern decision making.

The worst thing is you can't persuade somebody of faith because they can constantly take it to the ext level of absurdity and where does it stop if logic is removed from the situation, which it must be for faith to thrive in the first place.

 

[tridianprime]

That, right there, is the big problem with faith. It has no boundaries, it trusts all, believes all, and all because it wants to, because it 'feels right' (apparently).



With whom (or is it 'who'? - I keep getting these two mixed up) does the burden of providing evidence lie? With the one making the claim, of course. It is not the job of 'the scientific community' to investigate phenomena and test hypotheses that others, who are not directly involved in the issue at hand, believe, based upon faith, to be true. No one can say for sure that 'God does not exist', but through an examination of what we can access (i.e. physical reality) we can reach a tentative position whereby we can state with a certain degree of confidence that, 'Based upon the evidence gathered, and the logical coherence of God as defined by X, we can say that God almost certainly does (or does not) exist, although we are always open to a re-interpretation of the evidence we have and that this conclusion of ours does not include other workable definitions of God that others may have, and which they may present to us if they so choose'.

Science, being based as it is upon fallible humanity, does have its limits, but that is not a bad thing because it is partly because of these limitations that it works so well. It cannot investigate what many label 'the supernatural', but then 'the supernatural' is, by definition, beyond the physical and therefore outside the scope of science. However, if you are one to believe in the supernatural then I ask that you provide your reasons for doing so, and I ask that you do not become upset if I happen to reject those reasons. Remember: the burden of evidence lies with the claimant.

I have tried that argument many times externally but that is a scientific method which, when about faith, can be ignored(?). I agree with you but it is a pointless debate. I normally just recommend reading Dawkins or Nietzsche, sometimes relevant, and if they aren't convinced i leave it.

Accepting information by claim has lead us to many bad situations. This reminds me of the Salem witch trials or the treatment of women or homosexuals in many middle eastern countries. Those are extremes but name an instance where it has helped.

 

[Grumpy Cat]

Or maybe a person is covering up a weakness of their own - one that won't allow them to have faith. And who is to say that logic isn't absurd? And if you have to "persuade" (meaning also to coax, convince, coerce, influence or sway) a person about something - then maybe that's a clue that that somethng could be WRONG.

 

[tridianprime]

Or maybe a person is covering up a weakness of their own - one that won't allow them to have faith. And who is to say that logic isn't absurd? And if you have to "persuade" (meaning also to coax, convince, coerce, influence or sway) a person about something - then maybe that's a clue that that somethng could be WRONG.

I am going to be sensible and not respond to that. I mean no offence but i handle such debates badly and what you just said cannot be debated in anyway due to a lack of reason which is necessary for an intelligent debate. By questioning logic you are questioning the only consistency we have and what humans, as a bundle of logical connections, rely on to function together or alone. Your capitalisation of the word "wrong" suggests you are getting frustrated. Is that possibly because you doubt your own theories substance?

I am actually flabbergasted by what you just said. I thought us aspies tend to embrace logic and reason as a consistency. Symptoms can waver sure but that is insane, no offence.

Edit- your part about it being a sign of it being wrong: Alternatively, those people are just too blind and they have become so dependant on their faith that they will never see reason even if god appeared. I imagine you would then believe that god has a god although that is a contradiction to the original idea of god being the creator.

 

[Ereth]

In response to the last part. Faith held us back from advancing technically for hundreds of years before the 1400s and it continued long after that. Granted it has been different but it is too unpredictable and you can't use such a dynamic model based on pure faith to live by because it can disrupt furthering of our technology and understanding.

Very, very few people in this world live according purely to faith nowadays, and while I believe scientific advancements have generally made life better, I also believe that if an adult wishes to live predominantly led by faith, he or she is allowed to do so, provided that no actions to harm the self or others are committed in the pursuit of that faith.

The idea of a soul is preposterous. We know how our conscious and unconscious minds work- via electrical impulses etc. sending signals through neurons and this idea of a conscious mind is really just a complex computer- an advanced AI.

People can believe whatever nonsense they like so that they feel better about death but that is because people are scared. They need to accept everyone dies and faith doesn't make you strong it covers up your weakness. However, if somebody tries to make predictions or decisions based on faith then they must be stopped immediately because it has no place in modern decision making.

Okay, so you get that people are afraid of death. It's a perfectly reasonable reaction, in my opinion. You don't need to be condescending about it, even if you don't believe in a soul. Heck, I don't even know if I can believe in a "soul"---at least not as it is defined by faith. But I don't ridicule people if their beliefs are different.

The worst thing is you can't persuade somebody of faith because they can constantly take it to the next level of absurdity and where does it stop if logic is removed from the situation, which it must be for faith to thrive in the first place.

Persuade somebody of faith of what? That their beliefs are insignificant and meaningless because they are unimportant to you? It's true that science has taken over much of the explaining that used to be done by faith alone. But again, there's no need to be disrespectful.

I am going to be sensible and not respond to that. I mean no offence but i handle such debates badly and what you just said cannot be debated in anyway due to a lack of reason which is necessary for an intelligent debate. By questioning logic you are questioning the only consistency we have and what humans, as a bundle of logical connections, rely on to function together or alone. Your capitalisation of the word "wrong" suggests you are getting frustrated. Is that possibly because you doubt your own theories substance? I am actually flabbergasted by what you just said. I thought us aspies tend to embrace logic and reason as a consistency. Symptoms can waver sure but that is insane, no offence.

You say you mean no offense, but you're coming dangerously close to making this personal. Please don't do that. Angela's allowed to state her opinions, just as you are.

And let me ask you this: how do you think logic as we understand it came to be? Our understanding of the world didn't come about all at once---instead, it came in bits and pieces. Some conclusions made by people from the past were previously thought to be logical until they were given a second look.

You've presented a straw man argument: you're claiming that people have to abandon logic to adhere to a faith. Maybe it isn't logical to believe in a deity or a soul, but it's also illogical to act like faith hasn't been an integral part of our experience as a species. Maybe we would have progressed more quickly without faith. Maybe we wouldn't have. I can't say for sure. I'm not omniscient. But I do know that our many cultures have been made much richer thanks to the presence of faith. That's what I believe, at least, and I'm an atheist Jew (which means I don't really believe in a God, but my Jewish heritage is still important to me). I can be atheist and still respect that people choose to adhere to a faith (or a lack thereof, in your case).

Thanks for listening, folks.

 

[tridianprime]

Very, very few people in this world live according purely to faith nowadays, and while I believe scientific advancements have generally made life better, I also believe that if an adult wishes to live predominantly led by faith, he or she is allowed to do so, provided that no actions to harm the self or others are committed in the pursuit of that faith.



Okay, so you get that people are afraid of death. It's a perfectly reasonable reaction, in my opinion. You don't need to be condescending about it, even if you don't believe in a soul. Heck, I don't even know if I can believe in a "soul"---at least not as it is defined by faith. But I don't ridicule people if their beliefs are different.



Persuade somebody of faith of what? That their beliefs are insignificant and meaningless because they are unimportant to you? It's true that science has taken over much of the explaining that used to be done by faith alone. But again, there's no need to be disrespectful.



You say you mean no offense, but you're coming dangerously close to making this personal. Please don't do that. Angela's allowed to state her opinions, just as you are.

And let me ask you this: how do you think logic as we understand it came to be? Our understanding of the world didn't come about all at once---instead, it came in bits and pieces. Some conclusions made by people from the past were previously thought to be logical until they were given a second look.

You've presented a straw man argument: you're claiming that people have to abandon logic to adhere to a faith. Maybe it isn't logical to believe in a deity or a soul, but it's also illogical to act like faith hasn't been an integral part of our experience as a species. Maybe we would have progressed more quickly without faith. Maybe we wouldn't have. I can't say for sure. I'm not omniscient. But I do know that our many cultures have been made much richer thanks to the presence of faith. That's what I believe, at least, and I'm an atheist Jew (which means I don't really believe in a God, but my Jewish heritage is still important to me). I can be atheist and still respect that people choose to adhere to a faith (or a lack thereof, in your case).

Thanks for listening, folks.

As i said, i mean no offence and if it comes across that way i apologise but it shouldn't be that surprising considering this is an Aspergers forum.

Furthermore, i stated that i agreed with your first paragraph as to people can live like that if they want to and if i came across as abrupt or disrespectful i apologise but, once again, i have difficulty knowing what is offensive to say. As to the the condensation, my previous sentence concerns that also.

As for it becoming personal, i explained that i have trouble with that in my post and i meant no offence to Angela but i wrote in this style as a response to the previous comment which i felt to be rude and unnecessary as i explained.

I was simply confronting the issue that Angela brought up of logic being absurd an i was not trying to confront the issue as a whole- i made that clear. So your idea that it is a straw man argument is not relevant because i wasn't trying to address the issue of faith as a whole.

Once again, i did not intend to be rude or condescending to Angela or anyone for that fact but it was due to my social naivety and i felt it was a reciprocation of the tone she expressed.

If that last part also sounded condescending then i give up- i am useless at communicating. Should i put it in my signature?

 

[All-Rounder]

I'm not sure if I mentioned it before, but I don't believe belief is a choice. My intention is not to disrespect or degrade people, or their intelligence or how well they can make choices in life because intelligence and success isn't correlated with religious beliefs.

I was indoctrinated as a child, some people spend their whole lives believing in it and that might have as well been me. However there have been great benefits to my life that I will abstain to mention to not trigger anything. I don't know if people know, but there are societies that deal with trauma caused by religion in people's lives, and I believe religion is capable of doing a whole lot of harm and not enough good to people, as well as disrooting them from reality, which can make them blind to the people in their lives and what really matters, which i believe is being kind and supportive to one another, not abandoning them for their beliefs. My intention is not to say my belief is the way, but for me it has been a great improvement and is the way, I'm glad to have my path get better. And I was religious before.