do you believe in sorcery/witchcraft ?

[polywideblock]

isn't love the sorcery that we're  all talking about , the woman of your dreams puts you under a spell ?   

[bull]

Just because science can't explain a phenomenon why does it have to be the work of God? Some things are simply unknowable.

It doesn't automatically preclude the work of God either.

[XH29N0G]

Just because science can't explain a phenomenon why does it have to be the work of God? Some things are simply unknowable.

It doesn't automatically preclude the work of God either.

I believe these are both valid and not mutually exclusive when looking at it using the scientific method.  It also seems that the scientific method (science) could at some time (or in some world) provide evidence for God, drawing the two points discussed here into a unified framework. 

It might be different discussion if we had some people using verbal probability expressions (words used to define levels of probability e.g., likely, possible, virtually certain....).

[Old Moparz]

[John_Kunkel]

It also seems that the scientific method (science) could at some time (or in some world) provide evidence for God, drawing the two points discussed here into a unified framework. 

Depends on what one accepts as "proof". To folks like me, the only proof would be face-to-face contact with your god, sit down to a beer and have a one-on-one conversation....anything else is mere conjecture.

[ACUDANUT]

 You know St. Thomas did not believe until he saw with his owns eyes.  Jesus said, blessed are those that believe, but have not seen. 

[John_Kunkel]

Did you personally talk to St. Thomas? If not, what he saw and what Jesus said are likely the stuff of myth.

[Dino]

Oh look at that, I made a typo.  I'll go throw myself of a rock now.

[bull]

Did you personally talk to St. Thomas? If not, what he saw and what Jesus said are likely the stuff of myth.

Did you personally  speak with Charles Darwin or do you read what he said?

[bull]

Ask them who won the Nobel prize in chemistry or physics this last year and you will likely just get a blank stare, until they start looking it up on their phone or computer.

I stopped caring about that when it appeared to become agenda-driven. When Al Gore got one my faith in that process waned significantly and it crapped out completely when Obama nominated himself and won for doing virtually nothing, or at minimum, nothing praiseworthy.

[Mike DC]

  
Yeah, the Nobel committee lost a ton of credibility when they gave that award to BO about 15 minutes after he got elected.  

[polywideblock]

You know St. Thomas did not believe until he saw with his owns eyes.  Jesus said, blessed are those that believe, but have not seen. 

in the book according to who ? written how many years after the fact? who knows what was said 

[Chad L. Magee]

Ask them who won the Nobel prize in chemistry or physics this last year and you will likely just get a blank stare, until they start looking it up on their phone or computer.

I stopped caring about that when it appeared to become agenda-driven. When Al Gore got one my faith in that process waned significantly and it crapped out completely when Obama nominated himself and won for doing virtually nothing, or at minimum, nothing praiseworthy.

I think you misunderstand about the Nobel prizes as there are many of them.  To earn a Nobel prize in the hard sciences, you must change the world with your research.  Typically it takes 20-40 years after the research is first publicized before someone is nominated in Chemistry or Physics, less time for really important concepts.  (A Nobel prize in Physics in 2010 went to a group that first separated graphene from graphite using tape of all things.  See the link below.)  If you die before getting nominated, you do not get the prize no matter how much your work changed the world.  I have personally met three Chemistry Nobel lauretes in my lifetime.  The Nobel prize you are talking about is the peace prize.  It can be thought of as a popularity contest "boobie" prize, not nessicarily earned for doing anything really life changing other than being really popular, although sometimes it does have merit behind it.  I am not tryiny to slam you Bull, but this proves my point: Most people simply do not pay attention enough to know the differences invovling the sciences.....

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2010/press.html

[XH29N0G]

The Nobel Prize in science is reputable, but that is not why I am writing again.  

The main reason I am adding more is because there is an important point to keep in mind when thinking about Science, and I think it is sometimes missed.  Science is not opinion, and it also follows a methodology that does not prove things.  

Science generates  hypotheses from observations (evidence) and evaluates them with respect to independent evidence (tests).  A key point is that the hypotheses be testable.  The formation of hypotheses often follows a principle of parsimony (that the simplest explanation is the one to take precedence), but it is possible that more complicated explanations may be more correct.  The idea is that with further testing, the evidence will be more likely to fit with the correct hypothesis - even if it is more complex.   There is also an element of what we can do limits what we can make hypotheses about. That which is not testable now, may be testable in the future, so new hypotheses may eventuate.  

I still maintain that it is possible that science may someday be reconciled with a God, but I do have an idea of how that may play out.  I do not have a test so my assertion is conjecture, but for me, it does not stop me from looking for evidence.  

I also respect John's comment that he would want face to face evidence.  Sometime extraordinary hypotheses call for extraordinary evidence.

[bull]

Chad, I totally understand there's way more to the Nobel process than the peace part of it but you have to admit these two very questionable recipients (especially the latter) have really sullied the public's perception of the decision making process. Really makes one question the motives.

[71green go]

Where is George Burns when you need him to straighten this all out

[ACUDANUT]

I am not an overly religious man, but I do believe in the supreme being. I believe that that our existence was the result of our creator.

Let me ask a question. What is love? Explain love. It cant be seen, heard, tasted, or physically felt. Yet it is real. If a person has never been in love they may not believe love is possible, one may think those that are in love are foolish. Why does the woman or man you decide to spend your life with mean so much to you? Why does that one person mean so much over any other? A group of children playing, why is the one that belongs to you mean more to you than the others?

The belief in a supreme being is exactly the same as the feeling of love. Neither can be proven, there is no scientific evidence. But when you experience the warmth and comfort, the feeling inside you that tells you there is more than flesh and blood, when you know there is a God, life gets better. It just does. Cant explain the reason for that either.    

Very well said. Don't tell Richard Cramer your understanding of anything.  LOSER..

[Paul G]

Let me ask a question. What is love? Explain love. It cant be seen, heard, tasted, or physically felt. Yet it is real. If a person has never been in love they may not believe love is possible, one may think those that are in love are foolish. Why does the woman or man you decide to spend your life with mean so much to you? Why does that one person mean so much over any other? A group of children playing, why is the one that belongs to you mean more to you than the others?

The belief in a supreme being is exactly the same as the feeling of love. Neither can be proven, there is no scientific evidence. But when you experience the warmth and comfort, the feeling inside you that tells you there is more than flesh and blood, when you know there is a God, life gets better. It just does. Cant explain the reason for that either.     

you know? I was to post about this yesterday!!! but didn't because by LOVES FAULT I'm depressed right now ( REALLY DEPRESSED ), depressed enough to not make long post or even think good... and this is what actually took me to create this topic. Something weird is happening around me related to love.

Sorry to hear that Nacho, really. The love of a woman can make a man crazy. Sometimes two people can be deeply in love, or some times just deeply in lust, but can not live together, or even be friends. But, when the time arises they attract to each other like magnets. That is an unhealthy situation. I have experience in that problem. Or, it may take time to find the woman who is just right, within reason, no one is perfect, none of us. Finding the right person is tough. What ever the problem may be, keep forging ahead. Your girlfriend in a previous thread was a beautiful woman. If it is her, or not, the right one is out there for all of us.

As for the question of sorcery and witchcraft. I do not believe in any of that. But my mother did. Something in her life must have happened that gave her that belief. Like putting evil spells on people and things like that. I don't believe in any of that stuff myself. Sometimes if you believe that something can occur, it does. That can be called a "self fulfilling prophecy". If you believe that it is not real, then it wont hurt you. The human mind is something that we don't fully understand.

A person can have a fatall illness, and survive it. Another can have a similar fatal illness, and not survive it. And the doctors can not explain why? The expression that "laughter is the best medicine", why is that? Could it be that laughter creates a positive mindset? Can that in itself change the outcome? Just because the person has the will to overcome?     

[John_Kunkel]

Did you personally talk to St. Thomas? If not, what he saw and what Jesus said are likely the stuff of myth.

Did you personally speak with Charles Darwin or do you read what he said?

Nice comeback....not. Darwin's work by his own hand is in print, the contents of which are up to the reader to pass judgement upon.

Do the writings of St. Thomas survive or are his words passed on by word-of-mouth to be put into print later? Jesus never wrote anything that survives, truth be know, if he existed, he was probably illiterate like most common people of his day.

Snopes is full of myth that is mere days old and has already been passed around to the whole world.

[Chargerguy74]

You know St. Thomas did not believe until he saw with his owns eyes.  Jesus said, blessed are those that believe, but have not seen. 

in the book according to who ? written how many years after the fact? who knows what was said 

When was it written? Do you know? Most of the New Testament was written in the eye witness period the following decades after the crucifixion. I wonder how many other similarly documented examples there are of historic events that you would take as fact. There were a few historians (outside of the Bible) that wrote of Jesus and his following prior to the crucifixion as well. There is far less written about Ceasar than Christ, yet we have no issue believing Ceasar existed.

[polywideblock]

most don't have trouble believing that Jesus existed. it's the second hand accounts written years sometimes decades  after the fact that say he said this or said that  ,that's hard to believe  

sometimes I can't recall a conversation word for word that happened on the same day let alone years latter  

                               poetic licence is what they call it  

   yet some quote the bible as if Jesus was talking into a Dictaphone and Mathew mark luke and john were his personal assistants, taking down every word    get real

[moparsr2fast]

 I believe the bottom line here is there are two different, and irreconcilable ways people perceive themselves and the world around them. On one hand, you have those who believe specifically only what they can prove thru scientific observation. The physical, cold hard facts. Our observational tools as a species has grown tremendously,  especially in the last century. It has allowed for an exponential influx of information to which we  base our ever groing knowledge of not only the world around us, but the universe in general.

  Then you have those that are prone spiritually. We can't back up the existence of God, or the Deity of Christ with anything that will suffice as sufficient  proof to the former group. Jesus may not have had a " dictaphone ", but we take on faith the recorded events of that time. To us, the idea of God's Word is infallible. Indeed we take on "Faith " what is written, and for true believers, live our lives in accordance with the Word prompted by the Holy Spirit.  It is,  for example, why a person may forgive their spouse for the indiscretion of adultery  as opposed to end said person's life in an abrupt  manner.

This is a discussion that is the antithesis  of 2 view points that will never be reconciled until we pass from this world.

  I would like to add that belief in the unseen is NOT proof of idiocy.  It is NOT proof of being raised in an environment where beliefs are thrust upon you as an impressionable child. While those examples can and do happen, we should not construe all believers as being merely dumb ( ie.. lesser IQ),  and brainwashed. I myself was brought up in a secular household, have an intense like for Astronomy, and science in general. Am better with numbers then communicating with the general populace... yet, I believe. My personal reconciliation with the observable universe is that we may be understanding some of the rudimentry aspects of just how God did it!

[Dino]

It's not that black and white.  And by the way, are you saying a non believer would rather end his spouse's adulterant wife in an abrupt manner because there's no God standing beside him?  You know how sick that is?  Do you really believe a religious man is a better man because of belief? 

Scientists also do not live by the cold hard facts, they simply do not make up any.  There's a tremendous difference.

Anyway, you believe what you need to believe but try to not think I black and white terms, it just doesn't work that way.  There's much more about this than 2 view points. 

I'm getting pretty tired of being looked at as a subhuman because I don't believe in your God as well.  I've had patients walk away from me when they found out, yes I have to friggin' hide it as well.  People I work hard for to make them better and that's my thanks. 

Makes you wonder why your God made me an atheist.  My life would've been much easier if only I could ignore facts.

[Dino]

I got bitter there for a moment.  Don't know why, maybe because this is indeed never ending.

Ignore my last point, I don't mean to raise tensions.  I'm gonna grab a cup of coffee and chill a bit.

[bull]

Did you personally talk to St. Thomas? If not, what he saw and what Jesus said are likely the stuff of myth.

Did you personally speak with Charles Darwin or do you read what he said?

Nice comeback....not. Darwin's work by his own hand is in print, the contents of which are up to the reader to pass judgement upon.

Do the writings of St. Thomas survive or are his words passed on by word-of-mouth to be put into print later? Jesus never wrote anything that survives, truth be know, if he existed, he was probably illiterate like most common people of his day.

Snopes is full of myth that is mere days old and has already been passed around to the whole world.

Do you question the words attributed to Caesar, Aristotle, Pliny or Tacitus? Most people don't, probably because they have nothing to say that cramps anyone's style. But one of the main criteria proving the historical accuracy and legitimacy of ancient texts is the number of combined manuscript copies and the gaps of time between them. There are fewer than 50 manuscript copies of the figures listed above combined. The New Testament manuscript, however, was copied about 14,000 times including around 5,000 copies in Greek and about 8,000 in Latin with few time gaps between each example.

My example of Darwin was to simply make a point that many who believe the words attributed to him assume scientific interpretations are accurate. If you prefer to talk about more ancient texts my point would be the same because the bias is what is being said, not the accuracy of the text. It's easier for many to believe what is said by certain historical figures depending on how it aligns with the individual's world view.