The origin of Jebus and Aspartame Kills.

[TechMage]

[James S]

[w00t]

huh?

Let's not make the mistake. Religion **is** about a social system based on words from a book/books. Which then become a case where people are running around saying "the words means this or that", because they say they have the authority to interpretate it that way. But as history has proved, these wackos who claim to know better directly from the big guy himself are often making things up. It's the eternal problem of religion since it begin to emerge first time: the legitimacy of interpretative autorithy.

How do you propose we check stuff out if not by using the best tool we got?

We can do a little experiment, let's say you know the truth, and I don't. And I need to check your claim. So the conversation begins:

1. Do I have the right to inspect your claim? (well apparently you say I do, from previous post)
2. How do we know stuff? Is it fair to begin from what we experiance, (see, touch, measure, observe) and compare them with other people's experiance? (apparently you know this thing called science..so probably you agree, but best to reply on this)
3. If you have done the scientific experiment which result with those 2 conclusions above. Can you describe how/the method you arrive to such conclusion? (for the benefit of us who are not familiar with your experiment)
4. What does "omnipotent" mean precisely in your experiment? There are numerous natural forces that we know are ever presence in measurement, and yet we don't call them all "omnipotent deity".
5. There are a lot of things that we previously thought doesn't/can't exist in science, but yet we discover them all and still do. But majority of them are a result from flawed experiment or limited observation capability due to technological level. How can you be so sure science has concluded "God", whatever that is, does not exist?
6. what is God?
7. are you basing your religious conviction on some vague mysticism idea? if so why this particular form of mysticism, not the other form? care to explain?

[Paul]

http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/walrus.html

[James S]

Religion may be based on words and social organizations, but it is not words and social interactions itself. Therein lies the flaw in your logic. A church service is a social gathering related to a religion, but the church service is not the religion itself. I'd be interested in any specific examples of "these wackos who claim to know better directly from the big guy himself are often making things up" that you can cite so I can understand more of your point of view on this. There are plenty of people that use religion for their own personal gain or to substantiate their own personal fetishes. Most of these come in the forms of cults. Others, such as al Qaeda, use mainstream religions to associate with the masses. Another example of this is Hitler's use of the socialist party to gain power and exert his will. But just because lots of people make up stuff doesn't mean that everything is made up. That's why discernment is so important to every religion, evildoers possing as prophets or people that have all the answers are a fact of life.

The scientific method is a very good tool... for testing mundane things. However, when testing the existence of God you either have to assume one of the following: 1) that he does exist and then (per definition of God) is all powerful and can mess with your test and is everwhere at once and thus cannot be excluded from your test. Or 2) That God does not exist and thus cannot be included in any scientific testing as a variable for defining what existence is like WITH an all powerful deity. It's the classic "God in a box" problem, every first year science major will know this. Although I can tell you're a good scientist because you question everything, however just because you can question it doesn't mean it's inheritly flawed.

2. Experiences are more than just what can be measured or touched. Your number 5 shows that you know that science does provide for the as of yet undiscoverable and thus you must understand that there are many ways to gauge experiences beyond the material. Thoughts, emotions, pre-cognition, spiritual experiences, and other experiences that can rarely be shared and thus cannot be tested and are intentionally left out of any serious experiment. These things are what makes religion, however, and your omission of these immediately and unscientifically (per no. 5) omits the possibility of religion. However, there are many material experiences that religious people share. The Bible is filled with these experiences, such as miraculous healings, defying of scientific laws, returning from the dead. If you wish to not include such materials in your scientific search for the possiblity of religion, then will my personal witnessing to several miraculous healings in which I have been a part of be credible evidence? Or will my inherit belief taint this evidence so you can omit it as well? My religion is based on personal experiences and historical evidence found from many Biblical and extra-Biblical sources, thus it is not based on anything vague. These sources led me to these personal experiences and conclusions, thus the sources must contain some amount of truth.

[Jadam]