Villain

Our choice on whether or not to believe in God cannot be decided by science because science is a descriptive tool and God is not pre-described in terms that science would meet. Science is either always a proof of God, in the aspect that He made everything that science describes, or never a proof of God in the aspect that He never made anything because He doesn't exist. Trying to use science to 'find' the God described above might be considered broken, although probably not any more broken than the next person.

I probably could have written it better... My point was that assuming God used man to write the Bible means that God must exist (if God didn't exist then how could he have used man to write the Bible?), while assuming that man wrote the Bible on his own accord is not evidence that God does not exist, but merely evidence that He didn't use man to write the Bible.

I could see how you might come to the above conclusion when my post is read out of context but I quoted the passage above it for a reason.

Either you have to agree that the Bible is from God and therefore proves that God exists or you have to disagree and therefore it proves nothing about whether God does or doesn't exist. Supposing relates to the individual that supposes. If God created humans then He exists whether or not you suppose.

The basis of measurement would depend on what the religion is offering, but using science in the form of an experiment would probably not be a valid form of measurement as you have already stated. Poverty and education might play a role in religions that ask you to be less of yourself. If I have money, which is often attributed to power, or I have worked hard to educate myself, education is hard work, I might feel entitled to think more of myself and therefore not want to give up 'me'. I have earned the right to enjoy the fruits of my labour so why should I bow down to someone else.... If religion is faith based, education should have little to do with it.

Probably in the same way you would test a scientific claim, by measuring if it delivers what it promises.

Aren't we all broken in some sense?

Compared to what?

Does the scientific method not work under the assumption that all things being equal the same result will occur? The human error that I talk of would be that reproducing something with all things being equal is probably impossible and therefore variance will occur when one is trying to produce the same result. If the above is correct then how do we account for the variance without discounting the original result? At what point does the claim of x*y*z become untrue if I follow the recipe and recreate it as described, but attain a different result?

If God created everything then your cells are from God, what are you trying to prove?

Please consider which would be considered acceptable from a scientific perspective: To quantify the result I would make the cake as per the recipe that I have given and then say that 1. this recipe when done a certain way produces a cake of exactly x*y*z proportions (knowing from experimentation that it would produce a 5% variation) or 2. would I say that it is likely to be within 5% of those proportions?

If you're not of the opinion that man created the universe, then would you look to man to tell you who did? Saying that you don't believe in God because you don't like what He has done doesn't make much sense to me. If you decide that He exists, then follow His word, for you will surely know that he created everything and is all powerful, as Immortal has already pointed out. If you decide that He doesn't exist then why do you refer to scriptures of His existence (to those that have)? There is as much logic in trying to use the scriptures to prove that He exists as there is in using them to prove that He doesn't.

Hi Tar Thanks for the reply, the previous thread to which you refer was not meant to be linked to this one. I am aware that there will be errors as you have pointed out and was trying to understand what was considered acceptable. I am not going to suggest that data must be completely the same to make a valid conclusion. The thread which you linked was based on human trust and how we all have to trust in some way and therefore religious faith is not as abstract a concept as people make it out to be. The 'human error' in this thread is not related to trust but refers to acceptable reasons and the amount of acceptable adverse data for a valid observation to hold. A basic example might be baking a cake with a certain recipe, 500/510 times it comes out 'perfectly' according to the recipe and 10/510 times it's a flop to which the 10 times are seen as 'human error'.

Ideally taxes should be spent on public infrastructure/investment in GDP growth and redistributing the wealth from those with excess to those who can't meet their basic needs. If you live in a country that is lucky enough to have a surplus left, which is probably not the case for the majority, then public parks etc. is a pretty good idea IMO.

I thought we should make the topic a little more political seeing as it's in the political section. What's politics without controversy?

As far as discrepancies in data are concerned, what is considered acceptable as 'human error' or something similar to that (perhaps someone could give an example of something that is considered similar if such a thing exists)? Is there such a value in the general scientific method (10% deviation in result) or is it specific to the kind of experiment/science being done?

Surprisingly no one has defined freedom as: wealth. Isn't that the true definition nowadays?

My individual freedom stretches the course of my life, I might by the stretch of the imagination have freedom to commit murder at a specific moment in that lifetime but the consequences of that murder will impeach my freedom from that point onwards and therefore would not mean total freedom. Freedom to not be murdered, is just another way to say freedom to live that ties up specifically with murder.

These are my thoughts on freedom: Freedom is a concept that as an individual (person) makes sense, but as a society does not e.g. my freedom to murder imposes on your freedom to not be murdered. Freedom might be better seen as a scale of freedom to an individual rather than a societal absolute. If any individual were to reach 100% freedom it would imply that no other individual would have 100% freedom but not imply that all others would have no freedom.

I'm under the opinion that data is without meaning, but evidence infers meaning because in order to call the data evidence it would have to be evidence of something. Does evidence not imply empiricism, does anyone have an example of evidence which is not empirical? (I think spending some time defining aspects of the topic is in line with the topic and helps build a stronger conclusion, I didn't want to only be about empirical evidence though).

I would think that evidence would drive our perspective on something to the state of which we 'understood' it and from that point the inverse would apply i.e. we would look for evidence to support our perspective. Would you describe evidence as being 'opinionated' data or would you use evidence and data in a more inter-changeable sense.

To a blind man the sun is something that offers warmth, but to those that see it is something that offers warmth and light, it exists to both of them but in different ways. Does evidence cause your perspective or does perspective cause your evidence (notice there is no empirical in this question)?

The self-serving are always worried about their own time. Why would someone subscribe to something that asks us to give instead of continually just taking? How does the Bible serve my desires, after all the universe revolves around the earth, no? Not sure where you get this from. Did you miss the first sentence in my post? Why do you assume that I am talking to those that have already read it? Surely if you have read it and don't agree then my post would not apply to you? Don't be so sensitive, let's try not make this an emotional debate. The word 'might' is in reference to the possibility of something happening, it does not imply that it will.

If someone would like to read the Bible or any other religious text they can pick up a copy at a book store. They can read it and research the context of the time that it was written in and how it might serve the people that it was written for. If we are to discuss the Bible, then you should realise that the Old Testament was as much a law of the Israelite nation as it was the Word of God. There are large parts that are the voice of the Israelite people and not the Word of God. It will clearly say when God is speaking or when a prophet is speaking on God's behalf. The first four books of the New Testament are about Jesus, they were not written by Jesus. There are other books in the New Testament that describe the beginning of the church and how the young church should behave and teach the Gospel. Once you have tried to understand it you might realise why people believe it is from God, if you personally don't want to read it or read it and don't agree with it, then do that. What else is there to discuss?