Are you religious?

[StickyEnd]

Love has more going for it than personal experience as evidence, you can see people go to extraordinary lengths to protect and nurture others even to the point of laying down their life. That is evidence.

Sticky, far be it for me to be on the sky pixies side but I am sure there have been lots of people who have layed down their lives for their religion.

Accepted, but I don't think that is evidence that their religion is true. Evidence that they believed it to true is what that indicates IMO.

[Dwarf]

Love has more going for it than personal experience as evidence, you can see people go to extraordinary lengths to protect and nurture others even to the point of laying down their life. That is evidence.

Sticky, far be it for me to be on the sky pixies side but I am sure there have been lots of people who have layed down their lives for their religion.

Accepted, but I don't think that is evidence that their religion is true. Evidence that they believed it to true is what that indicates IMO.

I would agree to that, but I would not say that religion = God. These people may have felt there to be something, and therefore in the same category of evidence as that of love, but their interpretation of that feeling led them to religion.

- Thanks All I Want for coming in like that to show that we seem to have gone beyond mudslinging on this thread and that most of those following the thread are doing it with a critical and balanced eye, whatever we believe. -

Sticky, as to the above,
"I am not asking for logical or maths type proof, I am asking for evidence. I accept that love exists, even though it cannot be proven with that rigour it has got the weight of evidence. Love has more going for it than personal experience as evidence, you can see people go to extraordinary lengths to protect and nurture others even to the point of laying down their life. That is evidence."

Yet after experiencing the 'whatever it is we are talking about' then one can see altered behaviour in people, or changes in attitude and lifestyles, why is this not acceptable as evidence?

Love forms only part of the total experience, whilst being the underlying current thereof, and I would argue that if love can be shown by weight of evidence then the fact that a number of people can take it further to a connection with a further aspect of it, should be considered as evidence of something more or higher.

I do not understand this:-

Quote:
Posit that to fully understand a Creative Principle one must do so on many levels,
What is a "Creative principle"?

Right, let me try to get this over if I can.
I shy away from using the word God, and on this thread have tried to use other terms for what I usually define as the Creator, because it leads to a stereotyped image of what a deity is. People then start to imagine that I believe in X when it is in fact untrue, and therefore interpret my words differently to their intention.
I am not religious as I have stated on various occasions, I do not subscribe to a cloud-sitting interventionist deity whether benevolent or not.
So therefore what? I do believe that there is a Creative force underlying the universe that started the ball rolling, that it has set up the rules (or caused them to occur) and that we have chosen to participate in the drama/game whatever. This is not a biased Creative force, each soul has equal weight and judgement, heaven and hell form no part of this. Science can show us many of the mechanics of how this works on a physical level and may one day arrive to explain a meta-physical level.

Creative Principle. The universe began somehow right? There was a cause for it all to happen I think you would agree. Now what was that cause? Science can't show us as yet. Through my personal experiences I choose to believe that the cause had purpose behind it, though what that may be is a huge question. What evidence can I offer? Well if the Creator or Creative Principle or simply the Cause encompasses everything including emotional states then logical or rational deductions can only lead so far or provide only some parts of the jigsaw. Some of the other parts are meta-physical and emotional and have to be considered. I can offer these parts of the jigsaw as evidence of a bigger picture, if you choose only to accept certain pieces then we have a problem of coinciding on what is acceptable.
I used the term Creative Principle because the Cause/Reason for the universe then created it and caused an ongoing creation to occur. You may scratch your head as to what that Cause is, I am happy in my mind as to what it is and now am trying to deepen my understanding of it. The reason I am happy in this is the weight of evidence in my experience and that of sages (and I am not one) throughout the ages.

[StickyEnd]

I have snipped out the bits where I have no argument. Hope you don't mind, I just wanted to shorten the post.

Sticky, as to the above,
"I am not asking for logical or maths type proof, I am asking for evidence. I accept that love exists, even though it cannot be proven with that rigour it has got the weight of evidence. Love has more going for it than personal experience as evidence, you can see people go to extraordinary lengths to protect and nurture others even to the point of laying down their life. That is evidence."

Yet after experiencing the 'whatever it is we are talking about' then one can see altered behaviour in people, or changes in attitude and lifestyles, why is this not acceptable as evidence?

Love forms only part of the total experience, whilst being the underlying current thereof, and I would argue that if love can be shown by weight of evidence then the fact that a number of people can take it further to a connection with a further aspect of it, should be considered as evidence of something more or higher.

It is evidence Dwarf, just not for anything supernatural. If you are claiming that the techniques that you use can transform somebodies lifestyle, you will get no argument from me. It is only if you want to go further and say that it evidence for a higher power that I would dissagree. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Now let me be clear on this, I am not saying that there is anything wrong with your beliefs I am only claiming that they are not scientific.

I do not understand this:-

Quote:
Posit that to fully understand a Creative Principle one must do so on many levels,
What is a "Creative principle"?

Right, let me try to get this over if I can.
I shy away from using the word God, and on this thread have tried to use other terms for what I usually define as the Creator, because it leads to a stereotyped image of what a deity is. People then start to imagine that I believe in X when it is in fact untrue, and therefore interpret my words differently to their intention.
I am not religious as I have stated on various occasions, I do not subscribe to a cloud-sitting interventionist deity whether benevolent or not.
So therefore what? I do believe that there is a Creative force underlying the universe that started the ball rolling, that it has set up the rules (or caused them to occur) and that we have chosen to participate in the drama/game whatever. This is not a biased Creative force, each soul has equal weight and judgement, heaven and hell form no part of this. Science can show us many of the mechanics of how this works on a physical level and may one day arrive to explain a meta-physical level.

Creative Principle. The universe began somehow right? There was a cause for it all to happen I think you would agree. Now what was that cause? Science can't show us as yet. Through my personal experiences I choose to believe that the cause had purpose behind it, though what that may be is a huge question. What evidence can I offer? Well if the Creator or Creative Principle or simply the Cause encompasses everything including emotional states then logical or rational deductions can only lead so far or provide only some parts of the jigsaw. Some of the other parts are meta-physical and emotional and have to be considered. I can offer these parts of the jigsaw as evidence of a bigger picture, if you choose only to accept certain pieces then we have a problem of coinciding on what is acceptable.
I used the term Creative Principle because the Cause/Reason for the universe then created it and caused an ongoing creation to occur. You may scratch your head as to what that Cause is, I am happy in my mind as to what it is and now am trying to deepen my understanding of it. The reason I am happy in this is the weight of evidence in my experience and that of sages (and I am not one) throughout the ages.

I know you are not religious in the conventional sense Dwarf. When i make points against religion in my replies to you they are not necessarily aimed at you directly, sometimes I am pointing out the differences between some religions and science, that is all.

Anyway, I am still not certain what you mean with "Creative principle" but it probably does not matter too much. I do believe the Universe came into existence sometime in the past, aproximately 13,000,000,000 years ago (about tea-time :D ). What caused it I have no idea and this is the bit that surprises me in that in all my requests for evidence for religion, nobody has brought up the cosmological fine-tuning argument.

I believe that your thirst for knowledge is genuine, we just dissagree about the best way to obtain it. Whatever it is that you are doing keep on doing it if it makes your life feel more worthwhile and enjoyable. It is not scientific though and that is not a dig, not everything that has value is.

[Dwarf]

It is evidence Dwarf, just not for anything supernatural. If you are claiming that the techniques that you use can transform somebodies lifestyle, you will get no argument from me. It is only if you want to go further and say that it evidence for a higher power that I would dissagree. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Now let me be clear on this, I am not saying that their is anything wrong with your beliefs I am only claiming that they are not scientific.

Understood that you are not criticising my beliefs and I understand that they are not rigidly scientific.
But what is extra-ordinary evidence? Back to the what exactly would you accept?
Also if the evidence is to be experienced then unless one does so one cannot understand it, - like falling in love.

I know you are not religious in the conventional sense Dwarf. When i make points against religion in my replies to you they are not necessarily aimed at you directly, sometimes I am pointing out the differences between some religions and science, that is all.

Understood, I know I repeat myself probably too much.

Anyway, I am still not certain what you mean with "Creative principle" but it probably does not matter too much. I do believe the Universe came into existence sometime in the past, aproximately 13,000,000,000 years ago (about tea-time :D ). Damn! I'll have to reset my watch now, I thought it was in the morning.
What caused it I have no idea and this is the bit that surprises me in that in all my requests for evidence for religion, nobody has brought up the cosmological fine-tuning argument.
Which is?

I believe that your thirst for knowledge is genuine, we just dissagree about the best way to obtain it. Whatever it is that you are doing keep on doing it if it makes your life feel more worthwhile and enjoyable. It is not scientific though and that is not a dig, not everything that has value is.

Thanks, I am not claiming scientific though I just think that a huge concept such as a Creator cannot be understood by science alone, and think that other forms of insight should be considered. Historian remember.

[Excognito]

... What caused it I have no idea and this is the bit that surprises me in that in all my requests for evidence for religion, nobody has brought up the cosmological fine-tuning argument....
Which is?

Also referred to as the Anthropic Principle (of which there are many variations). Essentially the concept that the characteristics of the Universe only need to vary a little bit to ensure that a Universe with life as we know it is impossible or very unlikely. Used by both sides of the equation: one side ('supernatural' uses it to argue that the Universe is most likely to, or only could have, arisen by design; the other side counters this by pointing out that the fact we're here says that we happen to live in a universe that supports our form of life and that is all it says (tossing 5 sixes in a row could be explained by weighted dice, but it can also happen with legitimate dice).

[StickyEnd]

The cosmological fine-tuning goes along the lines that the Universe looks as though it was created by a superpower of some kind (GOD) because it is finely balanced. It sorta breaks down as

1. The fundamental forces of physics (gravity, electromagnetic the weak and strong nuclear forces) are vastly different in strength from each other.
The weakest being gravity then the weak nuclear force followed by electromagnetic and the strong nuclear force. The differences in strength is remarkable; gravity is 1000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times weaker than the strong nuclear force and electromagnetism about 100 times weaker than the strong.

2. If any of the forces had a slightly different strength the Universe would not exist. Gravity slightly stronger and it would have collapsed before stars formed. Slightly stronger and no stars would form etc.

I am really surprised nobody has mentioned it because it has to be about the best argument that the Universe was deliberately created that is out there. I would even concede this as evidence, not conclusive evidence but certainly a start.

[StickyEnd]

Damn! Double post.

[ScouseD]

2. I have made the bit where you used the word prove larger. I may have misread the way you meant to use it though. I think we may be talking at cross purposes regarding proof. I am using it in the mathematical and logic way, are you using it in the legal way? If you are then maybe I am asking for proof i.e. the weight of evidence.

Aha! Now I see it! I think you have it here, yes I am looking I suppose more at the legal way of things which is why we are running in circles.

By prove I meant show in the material sense.

So, genuine question here, if you have not experienced love and I have, then how can I prove logiaclly or mathematically that it exists?

The chances are is that you could not. Is that a problem?

Sorry to pull things back a page or two, but the experience of love (or other emotions) is not somehow beyond scientific enquiry and method. A couple of links (as simple as they are) will show that such research isn’t only possible but under active scientific investigation thanks to developing technologies (developed, yet again, by the scientific method):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/820857.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3804545.stm

The technologies are new and there is much to investigate, but all of the results so far point towards an observable and measurable system with no requirement for the supernatural, gods or otherwise. To say that the remainder is somehow the work of the supernatural is to simply invoke the “god of the gaps� idea, i.e. we don’t know so let’s assume a god is responsible for the rest.

A “feeling�, no matter how positive, is not evidence for the supernatural, in the same way that very few now believe that pain is evidence for evil spirits that need to be driven out by suitable incantations.

[ScouseD]

The cosmological fine-tuning goes along the lines that the Universe looks as though it was created by a superpower of some kind (GOD) because it is finely balanced. It sorta breaks down as

1. The fundamental forces of physics (gravity, electromagnetic the weak and strong nuclear forces) are vastly different in strength from each other.
The weakest being gravity then the weak nuclear force followed by electromagnetic and the strong nuclear force. The differences in strength is remarkable; gravity is 1000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times weaker than the strong nuclear force and electromagnetism about 100 times weaker than the strong.

2. If any of the forces had a slightly different strength the Universe would not exist. Gravity slightly stronger and it would have collapsed before stars formed. Slightly stronger and no stars would form etc.

I am really surprised nobody has mentioned it because it has to be about the best argument that the Universe was deliberately created that is out there. I would even concede this as evidence, not conclusive evidence but certainly a start.

That, to me, is the cart before the horse. We see the universe the way it is because if it wasn’t that way we wouldn’t be here to see it.

Put another way (said by or repeated by Dawkins?), a thinking puddle of water observes that it fits the raggedy, misshapen hole it is in right down to the last atom. Surely that can’t be a coincidence? The puddle concludes that the “perfect� hole was created for it. In truth the puddle fits the hole because those are its environmental conditions, however extraordinary it seems.

[StickyEnd]

2. I have made the bit where you used the word prove larger. I may have misread the way you meant to use it though. I think we may be talking at cross purposes regarding proof. I am using it in the mathematical and logic way, are you using it in the legal way? If you are then maybe I am asking for proof i.e. the weight of evidence.

Aha! Now I see it! I think you have it here, yes I am looking I suppose more at the legal way of things which is why we are running in circles.

By prove I meant show in the material sense.

So, genuine question here, if you have not experienced love and I have, then how can I prove logiaclly or mathematically that it exists?

The chances are is that you could not. Is that a problem?

Sorry to pull things back a page or two, but the experience of love (or other emotions) is not somehow beyond scientific enquiry and method. A couple of links (as simple as they are) will show that such research isn’t only possible but under active scientific investigation thanks to developing technologies (developed, yet again, by the scientific method):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/820857.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3804545.stm

The technologies are new and there is much to investigate, but all of the results so far point towards an observable and measurable system with no requirement for the supernatural, gods or otherwise. To say that the remainder is somehow the work of the supernatural is to simply invoke the “god of the gaps� idea, i.e. we don’t know so let’s assume a god is responsible for the rest.

A “feeling�, no matter how positive, is not evidence for the supernatural, in the same way that very few now believe that pain is evidence for evil spirits that need to be driven out by suitable incantations.

You quoted me there, then argued against a point that I did not make.