mooeypoo

That's the main problem here in these discussions. They want to eat the cake and leave it whole. I get the intent, but they either need to remain consistent and when it fails let it go, or drop it completely and just remain with "It's my belief and I don't care if it goes by reality". Also, and I am pretty sure you may agree with me on this, but the entire idea of science is to scrutinize claims. The whole "attitude" of "oh no you can't scrutinize my belief!" is screwed up, especially if a person insists to introduce their belief in the context of science. If you go into the game, get ready to play by the rules. Oh, and don't blame us when the rules fail you, theists. Please. It's annoying. And disrespectful. Here's a great quote from Harry Potter (Hermione rules btw): I agree with you. The only thing I'd put as a small caviat is that I don't think we dismiss the claims -- it sounds like we're not even considering them. We do consider. We just can't accept them without evidence, and there is no evidence. A claim was raised, a claim was examined, the claim was shown to not work. Usually, the case closes at this point until new evidence is introduced. Seems this fails in theistic claims. When it does, theists really need to recognize this and how really awkward that is. I agree again, but I think the difference between us is that I am a bit more patient in terms of understanding where they come from. Maybe because I've been there myself, and know ow that feels. So, I think I told this story before but here it is again: I have always been a skeptical person, and I have always been interested in science. However, throughout most of my youth (up to my twenties or so, actually) I believed in really weird crap. I was always either an agnostic or an atheist, but that was about God. Everything else? Not so much. I believed it's possible aliens visited us in the past and helped build the pyramids. I believed human beings have spiritual energies you can manipulate using deep meditation, reiki, and outer-body experience. In fact, I practiced reiki on my friends and I was considered to be quite good at it. I believed there are questions scientists don't want answered because they're stuck in an ivory tower and don't want their world rattled. I believed in a lot of other really weird crap I am too embarassed to even share (yeah, worse than the above list, trust me) The irony though is that I never considered either one of those as "beliefs"; I thought they were pretty solidly established. See, I *felt* my energies, and my friends *felt* my energies transfer to them when I did reiki. How could you fake that?! You can't! Right? ... I mean.. right?... The issue is that it's not like I didn't ask questions -- because I did, and I tested my own "powers" and my own beliefs, and read quite a LOT about everything -- it was that I had the wrong tools to answer these questions. Here's an example: One day I wanted to really test the concept of my "energies" and reiki, etc. All my friends were always saying how "powerful" I am and how good I am in relaxation techniques and reiki, etc, and it was great on my ego (yep). But I had a couple of doubts about it, so I wanted to test. One day I asked my friend (who was a believer) to help me test it. We sat at two ends of the table and held hands with our eyes closed. The idea was that I will "deliver" my energies to some part of his body without telling him which part, and then he will tell me if he felt anything. If he gets it wrong, then maybe there's nothing to this thing, but if he gets it right, maybe there is. I even planned to repeat the experiment a couple of times to see if it wasn't just a fluke. I had the right sort of idea. I was skeptical. I tried to test things, yes? no one could tell me I was being completely credulous! Not only that, but I wanted to trick the guy in front of me, to see if it really is true, so I concentrated on his left arm, but I "aimed" my energies to his right arm through his chest. The idea was to try and see if he gets it right. Well, two minutes in, when I'm visualizing energies flowing onto his chest (but squeezing his arm and looking at his arm in case he opens his eyes) -- he starts gasping. Needless to say I was mortified. When I asked what happened, he told me he suddenly felt his chest getting really warm. .... I concluded I am dangerous. When I asked my science friend about this, she laughed at me. You know what I thought? I thought she's so arrogant and stuck in her methodology and math and crap, that she's not even considering anything outside her realm of comfort, etc etc etc. It took me a long while to think I might want to actually DO science. Today, I look back at this with some amusement (mixed with slight shame, honestly) -- the ideas I had were okay, but the execution was completely lacking, and hence my conclusion was way out there. That's how I see many believers (no matter what they believe). Many of them THINK they have the right tools, but they don't realize that it's not the right tools, and hence the conclusions they are making are ridiculous. But they don't notice it, see what I mean? I don't blame them, especially with the way our society treats education for critical thinking. It's almost nonexistent, we don't give the right tools to people so how can we blame them for not using the right tools? that's the reason why I dislike the title of this thread. I agree in principle that the arguments are broken, and that makes the belief outside reality which, I guess, we could define as "being broken", but I really think that it's not helping anything, and I don't see believers as innately broken. I think their way of thinking might be broken, but that's not to say THEY are broken. Do you see the distinction? I think it's important not just for the sake of "politeness" but also because it shifts the focus of the argument around.... ~mooey

Science is a methodology to explain reality. It may have instances where it needs improvement, but it is designed to describe how reality works. It includes more than "just" "observations". If it was strictly about observations, we'd have much less science going on. We're concentrating on explaining how things work in reality, making predictions and tying everything up to *explain* the way things work. There are a whole bunch of things we can't observe and yet science still explains, or attempts to (mostly successfully). In reality. It's how reality works. That's what science is about. I don't mean offense here, but I think you might want to take a science 101 or philosophy of science / history of science class, it can shed some light on how science actually works in relation to explaining our reality. ~mooey

The logic here breaks because the equal signs can be argued. Also, "Belief in things that cannot be sensed" isn't quite accurate. It's more "belief in things outside reality" = "belief in not real". Then the "Broken" is something I might disagree with, so I am not sure the logic is sound even just on the basis of that. However, the intent is clear. I would phrase it as the *claims* are broken, or the *argument* is broken, rather than the person is broken (which is an ad-hom, it suggests that there's nothing much to be done, and depending on the situation, not necessarily true). By the way, this might not have been clear from my recent posts (Though I have explained it in the past a couple of times) so for the sake of clarity, let me say this: I don't think people who believe in religion are broken, and I believe people have the right to believe whatever they want. I also love philosophy, and I think science can benefit a *lot* from philosophical debates that challenge the way we think. I studied the old testament for 12 years from a secular point of view, and am a cultural jew. I know religion, and I like the concept as a cultural impact. I think the bible is incredibly interesting, and I get angry when religious folk demand it only belongs to them because of religion. The fact is that it's a historical book (not necessarily with accurate history) and I think it has great stories as well as completely horrific ones. We can learn a lot from it, especially about how to analyze texts and contextual linguistics. That said, the one thing I can't really understand is when religious arguments delve into science, insisting that God can be proven to exist, or that God has evidence of existence (usually this is accompanied by "how can you NOT believe!" type of arguments) but then when the "evidence" are scrutinized (which is a SCIENTIFIC METHOD! we do this to scientific evidence as well as any other evidence, on purpose, by design of the method) then suddenly the method is unsuitable, and religion is outside the realm of science. ... but there are evidence! and... and they're clearly true and how can you not believe it! oh, but they don't go by science and they're outside reality, and what does science do in there to begin with! See my point? Consistency people. You don't want to get into scientific rigor, don't get into it. But don't go all in and then complain when you fail. I don't quite understand why there's this insistence to forcefully fit religion into the definitions of reality. Why not admitting it's a philosophical mythical belief that one owns because he *can* because we live in a free society where anyone can believe whatever they want to. But if the argument goes INTO science, then you have to be aware you will be scrutinized in the scientific method like ANY other claim. Can't eat the cake and leave it whole. That was my point.

"What's in reality" = "What's real" = "What's existing". The scientific method tests that. We find no god when we test it. Seems self explanatory to me.

No argument here. Science is a methodology to describe reality. It's the closest thing we have to describing reality without bias. It's not "meant" or "not meant" anything. It's a methodology. When we try to describe reality without bias, we don't find God. When we try to describe God's existence without bias and in a way we can actually agree exists outside of people's heads, we fail. Evidence can't exist "just for those people", it must exist for everyone, otherwise it's subjective and biased. Science is a methodology to get rid of as much bias as possible. When we use this methodology, we don't find any evidence for a god. What does that mean?

Evidence is the same context, though. Evidence is always *for* something, it's not "evidence" on its own. Items fall to the floor when you drop them -- that's a fact, an observation. It's only evidence when you use it to explain something -- for instance, the theory of gravity. It is an evidence for gravity. Of course, for a theory (any theory, law included) to be accepted, it usually needs more than one evidence on its favor. The difference between the scientific process and the courtroom process is the process of making the conclusion. In the scientific context, the proposed theory is rigorously tested against reality (peer review) to make sure it follows reality. The courtroom is designed differently, for one, it's not about what actually happened, it's about who's ore convincing in proposing the theory of what actually happened. Part of this is because the courtroom isn't just about "what" hapened but also "why" it happened. Different process. Evidence, however, are the same meaning. Since a witness account isn't factual, it's not evidence. The fact the language is abused doesn't mean it's right. In any caes, we're missing the point here. There are no facts that support God's existence, everything is either philosophical or dependent on specific written accounts that are on their own untrustworthy. I still think these arguments misuse the word "Evidence" but even if they have a right to misuse it, I am not quite sure what the conclusion should be. If evidence is derived from empirical (trustworthy) observation and experimentation, and there are no direct nor indirect evidence for god, then why are we even usig the word to begin with? What is so horrible in admitting that a belief in God (any god) is separate from the need of evidence? Why insisting that there are evidence when there are no realistic ones, and then continue to insist that we actually shouldn't really view this in the context of science... If it's not in the context of science, then why even argue that it has strong evidence... I really don't mean any offense here, I just truly don't quite get that, to be honest. ~mooey By producing a method to have checks and balances and make the bias as small and as insignificant as possible. It's called the scientific method, and most of the time - it works. "Science" is a methodology meant to describe our reality. It's not meant to separate anything other than things outside reality. Now it's just a matter of whether or not you believe "things outside reality" exist or not. Of course, considering that reality is anything around us that affects us, does this even have any significance..?

Scientific evidence is empirical, yes. There is more to the scientific method than just that, but when you say "evidence", you mean actual *testable* repeatable evidence that can be confirmed by multiple people in multiple institutions multiple times. Even in things like history, you don't just go by a single piece of text. Evidence in history is an archeological discovery, for instance. A repeated mention in various cultures of the same effect might serve as indirect evidence which can add to the validity of a certain theory, but not serve as independent support. Also, in things like history, we often say "We believe things were X" or "evidence suggest X" and not "This is what happened" because we tend to not really know. Religious arguments don't quite do that, though with the same rigor. "Here's evidence!" doesn't work if you don't actually HAVE the evidence. Even "indirect evidence" is first and foremost an empirical evidence (observation, experimental result, etc, that is testable, repeatable, etc) -- the only difference is the way it aids the conclusion. Either it directly leads there or it's indirect. Indirect evidence are usually considered to not be a "full support" of a theory, but rather an extended support, so you wouldn't base your conclusion strictly on the indirect evidence. And if you do, then the hypothesis or theory is considered less strong (and more debated) than if you base it on direct evidence. There seems to be no direct, indirect or any form of evidence to the existence of God. There are logical arguments and theological explanations, philosophical descriptions and references, but no actual evidence. I'm not saying that means God doesn't exist, I'm saying that means there's no evidence, and it irks me a bit to hear arguments that there is evidence, it's just not of the scientific kind. If it's not of the scientific kind, it's not evidence, because evidence comes from the world of science terminology and methodology. Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want. We all probably have a bunch of beliefs that are unsupported by evidence. It seems to be part of the human condition, and I believe that as long as it's done with respect (and without insisting others should follow same beliefs) it's perfectly fine to have them. My sole problem is with the insistence to use scientific terminology when it suits the argument and then reject it when it stops working. ~mooey

Empirical existence.

Even historians use the word "Evidence" in its proper scientific context, though. They don't use it to describe something that has no evidence. It's true that historians make inferences, but they do that based on evidence, and the evidence are defined according to the methodology of science. For that matter, you won't find a history lesson about the evidence of Harry Potter, because there is no evidence for harry potter existence. You will find history papers that discuss the conclusion of what happened in Pompei based on the evidence that was found. The evidence for the existence of god is, so far, not evidence. Not in the context physics, biology and chemistry uses it ("empirical" science) and not in the context that history uses it (used to infer the conclusion). Evidence does not lose its meaning in different systems. It has the same meaning. If you mean to say something other than evidence, use another word. ~mooey

The problem with this is that the word and concept of "Evidence" is a scientific one. What you're trying to do is use science while not using science. That doesn't work. If you don't want to use the system of science, why use terminology used and defined by the scientific methodology? Use another word or another terminology, it may reduce the amount of dissent from science-minded people who use "evidence" and "facts" according to the methodology they were created for. I don't quite understand the duality here. On one hand it seems like many religious people claim "it requires faith" and on the other insist discussing such faith (leap or not) in the context of science... Why not just admitting it doesn't require evidence, just faith, and be done with it. Everyone has a right to believe and have faith in whatever they want, so why insist on using science not in the way it was created to be used to insist the faith is scientific, and then reject science when it doesn't work... ~mooey

The question isn't if you can find logic, the question is how hard you need to work to make the logic work for your chosen answer. At some point, if it requires extra particular interpretation and extra particular interpretations again and again, logic might dictate it may be the less logical answer. Don't you agree? Otherwise, why not just admitting it has nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with faith... ~mooey

The signal in the clouds was intercepted, and the moo was dispatched! Anyways, so, anyone who wonders why I was dispatched, I happen to know hebrew/aramaic, and spent 12 years studying the original language of the old testament, so I can read it. I was asked to try and translate the original, which is always a challenge. A translation is *never* a good one when it comes to the bible, because the meaning of the biblical verses depends a *lot* on context. Half the time even when you understand the original you need to cross-reference words and read the entire chapter (and sometimes the ones before/after) to understand the context. That said, this is a relatively simple verse about Noah's plans in the arc. This is a good reference for hebrew/english bible text that tends to be relatively accurate: http://www.mechon-ma...p/pt/pt0107.htm The only caviat I can give here is that on the 4th verse, the English version says "every living substance" while the original hebrew/aramaic uses the word for "universe". As in, "the entire universe". It makes no distinction about living. In fact, God quite clearly states that he will erase the entire universe that he created. The distinction about 'living' substances is in the translation only. ~mooey There's another issue I wanted to particularly answer to regarding the word "Eretz". The word "Eretz" is used in Genesis 1:1 "רֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ" (1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.) Unless we want to claim that God created only a segment of a land, the word means the entire bulk of the earth. Your example about Sodom and Gomorrah is a bit odd, DrDNA. The quote from Genesis 19:31 is this: This can either mean "a land" (limited to the city) or "the entire world". Either the older daughter tells her younger sister "omg girl, our dad's old and there's no one in this country that can come to us!" or she says "omg, girl, our dad's old and there's no one in the entire WORLD to come to us!". Either way works, which means that this example is bad to measure context. In fact, the second translation (which fits Genesis 1:1 and the Noah flood "universe" context) seems a bit more "dramatic" which fits the context of the entire chapter. And that is regardless of the fact that God states clearly that he intends to destroy *the universe* that he created during the flood. "Universe" seems to include the earth (our lovely earth which he created in genesis), the heavens, the light, etc etc. His universe. Everything. And then water drops onto the earth. *The* Earth. It's a bit of a twist to insist that the meaning is "part" of the land, when this word is consistently used to describe God's creation of the earth versus the heavens. Another example is the ending of the flood story in Genesis 8:22 God regrets the flood (which is a separate issue, but nevermind that now) and states that as long as the earth remains (Eretz) then summer/winter day/night will always continue. Those don't happen on a single land, they happen everywhere. It seems all context of the word "Eretz" -- from the creation of the world to the flood to the end of the flood -- are consistently the same meaning: THE Earth. It's everything on the ground, not just one particular land. "Eretz" vs "Shamayim" Earth vs Sky/Heavens. The distinction and meaning seem quite clear. ~mooey

This is very relevant, and very much worth the careful inspection, especially in light of the latest few posts:

Every step in the evolution of life.

I know, and I'm not talking about you specifically, but in the thread in general it's tough to separate between a harmless joke and sounding like you're mocking. In any case, it wasn't just you, your post just raised the issue in my mind. ~mooey

No, that's around the joint talk. Around the campfire talk is just a casual conversation done in a civil manner without condescension, mocking and personal attacks. Both sides need to take a step back here and breathe. We don't have to agree on everything and we can still discuss the matter, if we start by having some respect to one another regardless of our points of view, the entire debate will go a lot smoother, and we'll all be able to learn about each other's reasoning. I am not staff in this thread, so this isn't about rules or regulations. This is about respect and civility. Tar's comment was right on spot; this was supposed to be a friendly chat about religion. With due respect to "my side" of the argument, we don't seem to be doing a whole lot better when it comes to being emotionally invested and lashing out. ~mooey

I'm not sure what you mean. If it wasn't the case, this would've been in the trash can. It's in speculation where it belongs. It's open for discussion. Since it's essentially claiming gravity, a mainstream well-established theory, is wrong, it requires a large dose of substantiation. Also, with due respect, tar, the entire text in the first post is nonsense nonscience. It's mixing subjects of quantum, general relativity and loose subject of gravity, and seems to ignore quite a large amount of known knowledge to make the point that "we don't know". It's open and up for discussion, but the thread really needs to follow the rules. If this was an attempt to get something philosophical, then rephrase the premise (instead of challenging the theory itself, ou can challenge the philosophical principles) get rid of the religious aspect, and post it in philosophy. But it was posted in mainstream science. It really really isn't. We're not here to discuss me, we're here to discuss the theory, according to our rules. I'm sorry it offended you that we moved your thread to speculations. It wasn't done to offend you, it was done 'cause that's our rules. So far, your answers were either asking *us* to prove the theory for you, requesting for weird evidence from us, or misrepresenting the theory you claim is wrong. If your only defense for your theory is that I'm a bad moderator, then my "qualifications" aren't really the problem.

! Moderator Note Thread moved to Speculations, where it might belong if the original poster follows the forum rules and posts actual evidence to their claims. Or religion. Either way, some evidence and substantiation is required, as opposed to blindly misrepresenting a well-established theory You should revisit your basic physics books, Temporocitor. Also, please read our rules.

Tar, you make good points. I just want to point out that I think some of the disagreements in this thread are confusing because there are many people with many different definitions of God; some of the points that were made as a criticism against the existence of God were done so after a particular claim, which clearly was done about a certain type of god, and it may not be valid for another. But for me, at least, I am unconvinced that there's any use at all for the mere concept of a God, except as a means of comfort, which is a personal right everyone has. It's not like I am determined to be "anti any god", I just don't see any point to use such a concept; that's why I keep raising points against it. I hope that makes things clearer about my perspective, at least... I am not sure I understand what you mean here. Aren't we defining "reality" as "all there is", in some way? I, too, don't think there's anything outside reality, simply because I don't think anything can be. For me, even if we discover that, for example, ghosts exist (and let's not quibble on details just bear with me) then if we actually had evidence, and we saw it as true, it would BECOME part of reality as well. The same is true for anything, in my mind. If we discovered UFOs were beaming innocent livestock up to their massive ships for anal prodding, then that too would become part of reality. If we discovered that there's life after death, that too would become part of reality. Not only that, but speaking for myself alone I can tell you that if any of those were ever discovered as existing, I, for one, would follow on to try and ask how they work, why, and what we can know about them. That's just me, I won't be able to just be satisfied with knowing they exist -- so my point, I guess, is that I'd also want to use some sort of scientific methodology to learn more about either concept. And if the scientific methodology would stop being effective because any number of discoveries were to change the way we view reality, then I'd be actively trying to change it and find a way to adapt it to our NEW reality. Otherwise, what's the point of saying you're trying to describe, or discover, reality... All those 'discoveries', though, would have to come with some sort of evidence that show us they exist -- which means that they are real -- which means they are part of reality. Does this make sense? I am not saying "God doesn't exist", or "consciousness doesn't exist". I am saying I don't know if it does. However, there IS an extension to this "I don't know", that is the things that we do know. We don't know what happened before the big bang; it is possible there's a consciousness that made us, or an initial "event" that propogated the big bang, or that the big bang is actually a false observation. It's possible. Now, the question is twofold: A) why is that not enough, to say that we don't know, and keep exploring? Why do we require a deity/consciousness/etc and B) What are the possibilities that are (currently, according to our knowledge) logical options? I don't believe God exists. Is his existence a possibility? Yes. I just don't have evidence a God does exist, and according to everything I know, and scientific methodology tells me, the odds are that it either doesn't exist, or doesn't want us to know it exists. In such cases where people try to tell me God does exist, all I ask is for them to bring forth evidence so I am convinced this possibility is PLAUSIBLE. That it's POSSIBLE. That I should consider it part of the realm of options that are valid. Otherwise, it's an option, and, sure, why not, it could be true, but it could also be true that pink invisible tortoises fly above my head right now, and make my hair look frizzy. It's possible. You can't ever know, because they're undetectable. But is it plausible? Are there other options that are *more* plausible? If I can go around explaining my reality without the need to insert a higher consciousness or a form of deity, then I don't consider this solution *relevant*. I don't go around saying "There's no God!" Just like I don't go around saying there are no pink tortoises. For me, as a science-minded person, and for me personally as just me, I don't see the answer "God" (any god) as relevant as an option at all. I think this is where we differ, though. I agree with the first part of your sentence; if god is required, then he exists (seems obvious) - but the second is where we differ. If god isn't required, then other explanations will do, that much is true, but when you say "as long as they account for everything" you are setting things up unfairly. An explanation does not equal reality, it's just our way of describing reality. Assuming reality is objective -- that is, it "is" regardless of how we see or describe it -- then it's independent of whether or not we understand it, and it's independent of how we explain it. That is to say that (a) our explanations might be false, and (b) there might be things out there that occur in a way we might not be able to explain or even logically grasp. Scientific thinking tries to account for those two by providing a mechanism, a methodology, of examining what we know and our way of reaching conclusions: It has mechanisms to try and make sure that our examination of reality is as objective as possible, by defining things like double-blind testing, empirical observations, repetitiveness, etc. It tries to account for a full-a-picture as possible by making sure theories are consistent and predictable and falsifiable. It accounts for questions we are lacking by urging further examination, by defining a valid approach to how to define research. (It does other things, but this is a rough description) Theories adapt and change in the scientific community. Some more than others, depending on the level of how much they explain reality, and how much we know, and how much elements they have that substantiate them. A theory like gravity, for example, is most likely not going to be discovered to be COMPLETELY wrong, because so many things do work and repeatedly and consistently prove it correct, but since there are things we don't yet account for, and some problematic nuggets, it will, very likely, be adapted. Just like it was adapted between Newton and Einstein; general relativity did not negate newton's gravitation completely, but it did 'enhance' it and changed quite a number of things in it, and the way we look at it. My point is that you will most likely never have "all the explanations". The fact we don't have the explanation doesn't mean the explanation is God, or, for that matter, that a God explanation is required. So the last bit there of your quote "as long as they account for everything that is the case." is where I am in disagreement with you. I see no place where god is required at all. I understand why people want, and find it benefitial, to believe in a deity (of any kind), and I understand that some people believe a god is required, but I disagree that it is a logical rule. I'm hoping I manage to deliver my point... ~mooey

The point is that we're not sure, we just don't know, and that fact doesn't automatically mean that god is an answer. Further, what if the universe did "create" itself? I don't know, can you be sure it didn't? It doesn't sound logical to me either, but nature never was much for human logic. There are a lot of physical things out there that really don't follow what we would consider logical. So maybe it has, maybe it hasn't, but is it really that more far fetched than saying a deity made it? The same problem of "did X create itself" repeats if you have a god -- Did god create itself? Did someone else cause it? Do you see what I mean here? The explanation of a god doesn't really solve these questions, it just adds another layer that requires the same questions. And since that seems to be the case, then all science-minded people can say, really, is that we don't know. Yet. We might as we keep researching, but we don't know just yet. That's not a cop out, it's an admission of what we have at the moment. We don't know what was before the Big Bang - we might find out soon, or we might adjust the theory, or we might not know for a while, but "not knowing" doesn't mean there's a God. ~mooey

I'm going to print, frame, and hang it on my wall so I can look at it for eloquent perspective every time these debates come up. Well said, doG.

Sure. But then aren't we just redefining the word "Nothing" ? You are right, though. It all depends on your definition of "God." We usually go by the definition of a Judeochristian god just for convenience, and because of the fact that it is usually what comes up in the thread. If you read this thread you'll see that I wasn't the one that proposed a definition of God -- it was done by the claim proposers, whom I answered. In fact, I never assumed what God is. I answered the claims that were put forth with critical thoughts, as I do with your claims. I am not quite sure what you're trying to accuse me of. I answer claims that were made. You're not quite making any claims other than telling me that no matter what I say I'm wrong. So... how about we start with your definition of God, and what your justification of believing in such a god are? That's the topic of the thread, and I agree that it depends on definition, so no need to go in circles over the definitions other people use(d) in the thread. We can just start with yours..? Actually, I think the first question is "what is God", and then "how do we know it exists". I know it's a small distinction, but my opinion is that it's an important distinction to make. I'm a science-minded person. I hear a claim and I don't dismiss it -- I want to hear the evidence for it. So this entire thread seems to fall on the premise that I have something wrong with me for not believing a God exists, when in all fairness, I am simply not convinced. I heard and read the claims that were made, and each one I have answered why it specifically did not make sense to me, and was insufficient to convince me of the existence of the God that it referred to. Why is that so horrible? I live just fine without the necessity to believe in or "use" any form of definition in any sort of God or supernatural deity or a superior entity in my daily life, and in my scientific endeavor. If you think that this is impossible, you have a right to, of course, but you need to realize that you are the one making the claim that God is necessary, and therefore you are the one who need to substantiate the claim and show why God is necessary, what is this God you are referring to (as you said, it might not be the judeochristian god) and how do we know it exists. And then you have to be open to the fact that we will criticize (for better and worse) your claims. Because that's what we do in science. You have a right to believe whatever you want, but if you expect others to believe the same (in this forum, at least) you need to be okay with having your claims examined critically. That's how we roll here. Criticizing beliefs is not disrespect. I never claimed science can explain everything. However, as I pointed out before (multiple times), the fact we don't know something (or the reason for something) doesn't automatically means God is the only answer. There might be an alternative we aren't aware of. Do you agree with this point? And if that's the case, then this particular reasoning is not enough on its own to prove God's existence. It might be a good rhethorical case for God, but it's not evidence. Guys, look, I am being polite, and I am engaging in a rational argument. I'm sorry I don't believe, I can't help it, that's who I am; I can't force myself to believe something. IF you want me to believe, you'll have to convince me, and you really have to stop treating me like I'm disrespecting you. It's getting very frustrating. You all came to this forum knowing it's a science-minded environment, and our rules clearly state how we conduct discussions, religion and philosophy forums included (even the politics forum is included). Please try not to rush to the conclusion that if I disagree with a claim you make, I am mocking your belief. I really don't, but I will not stop being critical and examining claims rationally and critically just because some of you seem to be taking offense. I feel attacked, and I really shouldn't. I have been nothing but polite in my disagreements, and I think I raised good points. You should answer my points, but really, if this rush-to-conclusion and blame continues, I will have no more reason to participate. If you don't want your beliefs and claims to be challenged, don't post them. With the utmost respect, ~mooey

I don't need to. You're the one who made the analogy. I disagreed with it You don't need the concept of God to explain quantum mechanics, gravity, evolution, the evolution of the universe, the creation and evolution of stars, particle physics, consciousness, biology, epidemiology, medicine, the scientific method and even philosophy. You *can* use the concept of a higher power or a god, but you don't need it. The discussion goes great without it. I don't think you follow my logic because you seem to think about it differently than what it actually means. I have absolutely no problems thinking of "nothing", Athena. I am perfectly okay with that concept, and I see no problem with it. If you do, which is perfectly fine, you would want to make something that's "not nothing" and that's fine. But I don't. What's the problem with "nothing" ? If it's reality, and it exists (yah, "nothing" can exist, just like "infinity" can exist) then even if I have a problem grasping it, it wouldn' mae a difference. It just is. Also, logically speaking, the mere fact we can't (supposedly) grasp a concept doesn't mean it's not true, and it doesn't mean only one other option replaces it. For that matter, even if we can't grasp the notion of "nothing" it doesn't mean nothing doesn't exist as a concept, and if it doesn't exist, and there is indeed "something" it doesn't mean that this something is a higher power, or a "God". You see what I mean? In this particular thread, just because these are the claims made, but we don't always do that. There are threads in the philosophy forum and the religion forum that deal with a philosophical concept and understanding of God. Seriously, just go look at the philosophy forum archive. You'll see a whole bunch of discussions about this that go on the philosophical angle. We're not just discussing a particular god. ~mooey The moderation notes you received were not from one biased mod, they were from a concensus of many moderators that insist you read the rules. There's only one way for this to go if you continue ignoring those request, Mosheh, and that's out the door. We're giving you ample opportunity to cooperate with us based on our rules, which you agreed to when you joined. It's your choice, but if you refuse to, it won't end well. You came here and agree to our rules, it's only fair you follow them. ~mooey

If it was essential, everyone would "have" it, or require it in their consciousness. I don't, and I seem to not be the only one who doesn't, so I wouldn't say it's essential. It might be for some. Definitely not for everyone. Atheists use nothing; Atheists don't believe in God. "A" (non) "Theism" (belief in god). The fact we argue about the christian belief of God is a matter of convenience in this *particular* thread, because those are the claims that were raised. Look into the religion thread, there are quite a lot of threads discussing different definitions of God and some discussing the issue of spirituality in general (without a "definition" of god per say, but rather as the concept of a bigger force). We even have discussions about polytheism. Also, I would be careful in making the generalization on Atheists. We're trying to avoid generalization on christians (and religious) , I think it's fair (and smart) to avoid doing so for Atheists. Case in point, I'm an agnostic atheist, and I don't quite fit to anything you described. 90% of my friends don't either, despite the fact we vary in our opinions about what, who, why and how a god (any ,or multiple) might, should or could operate. ~mooey

! Moderator Note Mosheh, this is not the place for your personal pet theories. You have a thread about your theory in the speculation forum, stick to it. It's not the first time you are warned. Start following our rules. This isn't a request, it's a friendly reminder. Do not reply to this moderation note.