do you believe in sorcery/witchcraft ?

[Tilar]

Pay no mind to the negativity, People who don't believe can't understand God or the Holy Spirit or the fact they exist so to them it's easier to deny it than to accept it to be true.

This is the most ironic thing I've read on here so far.  I guess your definition of fact is a bit different than ours.

I'm not sure who all you think are included in this "ours" you mention, but it makes no difference. Which part don't you understand? The part where I say it's fact? Can you disprove what I'm claiming? Just because you might not understand it in no way means it does not exist.

[polywideblock]

no more that you can prove that it does exist

[Dino]

If it was fact then there is nothing more to prove and it needs to be accepted.  But it's not fact just because you believe it.  You claim it exists, you prove it.  That's how it works.

[Tilar]

If it was fact then there is nothing more to prove and it needs to be accepted.  But it's not fact just because you believe it.  You claim it exists, you prove it.  That's how it works.

Really. Are you married?

[Dino]

If it was fact then there is nothing more to prove and it needs to be accepted.  But it's not fact just because you believe it.  You claim it exists, you prove it.  That's how it works.

Really. Are you married?

What exactly does that have to do with facts?   

[Tilar]

If it was fact then there is nothing more to prove and it needs to be accepted.  But it's not fact just because you believe it.  You claim it exists, you prove it.  That's how it works.

Really. Are you married?

What exactly does that have to do with facts?   

It's simple actually, Are you married?

[polywideblock]

I was for 27 years ,whats your point 

[Tilar]

Since you jumped on this band wagon and were married, do you have children?

[polywideblock]

three great daughters from 21 to 30   yea do the maths     


if this is going where I think its going  none were christened/ baptised   

  I'm a baptised RC and had no choice in the mater ,  I let them chose for themselves at 16 1 is a Baptist the other 2 passed

[Tilar]

Not where I was going at all. I'm sure you do but my next question was "do you love them"? You've already answered by saying "three great daughters" which leads me to the next question...

Can you prove that love exists? Answer: Absolutely not.

no more that you can prove that it does exist

[polywideblock]

that is nothing like belief,   genetic conditioning connects us with our children /parents from the moment our eyes open   probably some pheromones involved to

belief is conditioned from surrounding influences your not born with an inbuilt need to worship god    .your environment  made you the god fearing Person you are

[Tilar]

It's every bit like belief. If you fathered a child and the woman runs off before it was born and you never knew that child, you could at a later time end up working right beside them and never know they were your child. You would not love that person unless you found out that it was yours. There is nothing genetic about it.

[ws23rt]

It's every bit like belief. If you fathered a child and the woman runs off before it was born and you never knew that child, you could at a later time end up working right beside them and never know they were your child. You would not love that person unless you found out that it was yours. There is nothing genetic about it.

Now this is just wrong.  Not being able to love a child unless the genetic information that they were yours is made available is ridiculous.
What about the many that were loved all their lives and were not genetically connected and it was found out much later?
Your statement about whether another will/can or cannot love someone is being rather presumptuous --no?

Is this something about witchcraft?  Or is it about the nurturing instinct we have that we can love and raise any child and feel love for any person as well as pets.  This can be taken much further but the point is we can and do feel love and that emotion can and does take strange paths.

[71green go]

It's every bit like belief. If you fathered a child and the woman runs off before it was born and you never knew that child, you could at a later time end up working right beside them and never know they were your child. You would not love that person unless you found out that it was yours. There is nothing genetic about it.

Now this is just wrong.  Not being able to love a child unless the genetic information that they were yours is made available is ridiculous.
What about the many that were loved all their lives and were not genetically connected and it was found out much later?
Your statement about whether another will/can or cannot love someone is being rather presumptuous --no?

Is this something about witchcraft?  Or is it about the nurturing instinct we have that we can love and raise any child and feel love for any person as well as pets.  This can be taken much further but the point is we can and do feel love and that emotion can and does take strange paths.

Gotta agree.....getting way off topic, Love is not the same as belief

[XH29N0G]

Merlin

[polywideblock]

still say pug would kick all their butts

[Chargerguy74]

God can not be disproven. It can't be done. Really, you believe in God, the creator, or you BELIEVE, there is no God. For any interested, there are some very good God debates on YouTube. William Lane Craig has some excellent and entertaining debates. Just saying, for those interested.

[polywideblock]

god can't be proven either  . same old same old. you say I can't prove there is none, I say you can't prove there is one . just saying its so doesn't make it so      an impass is what this is  called

[Mike DC]

   
Our culture's entire concept of "proof" is scientifically based these days.  God is arguably outside it by definition. 
   

[Tilar]

It's every bit like belief. If you fathered a child and the woman runs off before it was born and you never knew that child, you could at a later time end up working right beside them and never know they were your child. You would not love that person unless you found out that it was yours. There is nothing genetic about it.

Now this is just wrong.  Not being able to love a child unless the genetic information that they were yours is made available is ridiculous.

Apparently you misunderstand what I'm saying there but so did 71Green go so maybe it's the way I wrote it so let me change it a bit to see if you understand it better...

If you fathered a child and the woman runs off before it was born and you never knew that child existed, you could at a later time possibly end up working right beside them and never know they were your child. You would not love that person as your child unless you found out that it was yours... Unless you happen to have a habit of loving your co-workers like they are your children... which might be a little weird. So the genetic argument doesn't fit.

As far as love and God, Both are the same in that sense. You can't prove love exists because it only exists in your mind.

just saying its so doesn't make it so     

[polywideblock]

love is an emotion not a belief   

you feel love for something   its an emotion

you believe in god or not its nothing to do with emotion.

I don't feel love or hate towards your belief , just don't get it 

I personally    don't believe in anything  without proof .which is non-existent

love on the other hand is everywhere you look, parents and children ,couples etc  even the man and his dog in the park  there is proof everywhere 

but faith/ belief 

[XH29N0G]

   
Our culture's entire concept of "proof" is scientifically based these days.  God is arguably outside it by definition. 
   

Just an observation.  There are those that believe in existence of God, those that believe in the non-existence of god, and those that do not know.  Science does not prove, neither does belief, and our society has various ways of dealing with the different ways that different people deal with the point at which they are convinced.  In plain terms the scientific method is a way of reconciling evidence with probability, but we (people) usually prefer absolutes.  This carries through the discussion here, and it carries through other aspects of our lives. 
(As far as I know, it is not defined what level of certainty estimate (1, 2, 3, sigma)should correspond to beyond a reasonable doubt.  Beyond a reasonable doubt is also (as far as I know) not something that is proven.) 

The scientific method also does not preclude belief.  It may be fine for a scientist (some scientist) to say that they believe or do not believe in existence if they think the evidence (for or against God) exceeds a threshold.  My guess is that this is the case.  It also is probably the case that some people use the scientific method to treat what can be treated with evidence as knowable, and what cannot as unknowable, but still believe (or disbelieve). 

I don't want to stir things up more with this and accept many of the good points being made throughout this discussion. 

[Chad L. Magee]

   
Our culture's entire concept of "proof" is scientifically based these days.  God is arguably outside it by definition. 
   

Just an observation.  There are those that believe in existence of God, those that believe in the non-existence of god, and those that do not know.  Science does not prove, neither does belief, and our society has various ways of dealing with the different ways that different people deal with the point at which they are convinced.  In plain terms the scientific method is a way of reconciling evidence with probability, but we (people) usually prefer absolutes.  This carries through the discussion here, and it carries through other aspects of our lives. 
(As far as I know, it is not defined what level of certainty estimate (1, 2, 3, sigma)should correspond to beyond a reasonable doubt.  Beyond a reasonable doubt is also (as far as I know) not something that is proven.) 

The scientific method also does not preclude belief.  It may be fine for a scientist (some scientist) to say that they believe or do not believe in existence if they think the evidence (for or against God) exceeds a threshold.  My guess is that this is the case.  It also is probably the case that some people use the scientific method to treat what can be treated with evidence as knowable, and what cannot as unknowable, but still believe (or disbelieve). 

I don't want to stir things up more with this and accept many of the good points being made throughout this discussion. 

You did not stir things up, I am thankful for what you posted above.  I am a physical scientist and I believe in the existance of God because I can see enough evidence to convince myself that he/she does exist in the universe.  There was a study done a few years ago that showed that physical scientists believed in the existance in God in a higher precentage than most other professions, because they could "see" evience of existance.  Do I want how I feel to influence others on this topic?  No, not at all.  I feel that everyone has the right to make up their own mind on what they believe or not to believe.  People do judge me based solely on my field without considering that I am also a human with a will of my own and vice versa.  It is a double edged sword.  I have been told that I must not be much of a scientist because of my beliefs.  I have also been told that I must not be much of a believer because I am a scientist.  Now, which is correct?  To me, neither is a correct theory when tested....

As for the original topic, I have no idea on sorcery/witchcraft.  Early chemists (call alchemists) were persecuted as those because they were doing things that involved science that was little understood by most people at the time.  To a common person, a scientist does do strange things that may seem like "magic", but alas it is not.  We even put on chemistry "magic" shows for little kids to get them interested in science.  Of course, we explain what it going on as we do it to prove that it is not really magic but well known scientific princleples in play that causes things to act in certain ways....

Now, if you are talking ESP, that does exist.  I have had a couple forms of it since I was very little.  It is a curse, not a blessing to have....

[Dino]

Chad let me ask you something because this is what I run into a quite a lot.  When you say you believe in God, is this THE God or one of the major religions or another type of creator?  I have heard the arguments of scientist believing that some omnipotent being started it all yet few of them believe it's one of the Gods in our society today.  I need to leave that as a possibility as well, but it has nothing to do with current religions.

Someone also mentioned in this thread that out of nothing, nothing can come, as in the big bang.  So where did God come from?

[Chad L. Magee]

Chad let me ask you something because this is what I run into a quite a lot.  When you say you believe in God, is this THE God or one of the major religions or another type of creator?  I have heard the arguments of scientist believing that some omnipotent being started it all yet few of them believe it's one of the Gods in our society today.  I need to leave that as a possibility as well, but it has nothing to do with current religions.

Someone also mentioned in this thread that out of nothing, nothing can come, as in the big bang.  So where did God come from?

I simply believe in God, whatever form or existance he/she is in.  I know it does not really answer your first question, but that is what I see when looking at the universe in detail.  I wish I had a better answer for you but I do not....

As for the second one, it may all have to do with the defination of existance.  For example: Electrons have duality (act as a particle and a lightwave at the same time), yet we know they exist as a form of matter.  If you only considered the particle or lightwave defination at a time, it becomes hard to define their exact existance because of the other actions that it can do at certain occations (ie. tunneling thru an object).  This effect leads to probablility functions for their orbitals and Hisenburg uncertainties in their location/momentums (ie. we "guess" where they are/exist)....

Yes, I am working on something that may one day explain in detail how duality is formed....