It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to know that truth is awash in cognitive dissonance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
I'm a lot happier when I immerse myself in sin. I'm more joyful when I have great healthy sex, and I have a strong feeling I can speak for everyone else in this thread as well in that regard. listen to yourself, you are so repressed. what a tight and horrible way to exist walking on eggshells and tiptoeing around every last thing. I've found something so much better than religion, and its not rocket science either on how to live well and be kind to your fellows. you are happy of your chains, so if that's what twirls your beanie then so be it. but your brain is like a circuit board that's been tweaked to work one way with the notion that any other way is bad. that's confining. good luck not imploding later on.
Well if the third person of the Blessed Trinity comes to dwell in my heart when receiving the Eucharist, then why is said person always always getting stuck on the roof of my mouth? Tinkers to Evers to Chance Spahn & Sain & Pray for Rain B, L, T onion, celery, bell pepper
no kidding joe! those things taste like ass. maybe if they handed out Nilla wafers or something like that I may have stuck around longer than I did. question, how is the holy "spirit" ever a 3rd "person? ridiculous
let's open up a new cable football betting/religion channel. "With this Eucharist you will receive the holy spirit, and my 3 teams that will cover the spread today" only $39.95!
I saw the name of the thread and had to check it out. Usually, Respectful discussion and religion can't go together. I really don't agree with the way people are belittling you, Truth, but your argument contains numerous flaws. I respect your opinion, and do believe in god but I understand that it is a faith based belief and has nothing to do with science. I was a biology major in college and now work in the field so I know a bit about how science works and have used the scientific method myself many times. The problem here is that you are excluding scientific journals when talking about the validity of science. You claim junk science is out there, but then exclude the science that is actual science. Science is based on the scientific method and if it isn't peer reviewed and published, it isn't considered science. I'm curious as to what you refer to as "junk science". I know certain articles on news websites dumb it down and generalize, and political agendas are out there, but I'm not sure what you mean by that. This is a requirement for peer review, so it happens for every published experiment by multiple people. I agree that there is reason to believe, however science can only deal with this physical world and what we can prove about it. NDEs, miracles, etc are unproven by science to be anything outside of the brain because they cannot be physically verified. It's like saying aliens, sasquatch, lock ness monster, etc exist because there are thousands of eyewitness accounts. You can't verify personal experiences in science. Same with claimed eyewitness accounts from thousands of years ago. Nobody can verify that they are eyewitness accounts, in fact from what I've seen many of the gospels were written decades after the crucifixion. You are trying to compare verified scientific research to speculation and unverified stories as if they hold equal weight. They don't. From what I have observed, science updates its understanding when new information is discovered. If evidence is discovered that conflicts with a theory or hypothesis, either the theory is updated or the hypothesis is discarded. Obviously you are right about corporate lobby influencing many articles and claims, but the only way to keep them honest is to avoid the articles and read the research papers. Being stubborn and refusing to update dogma doesn't make the church right, plus they changed their stances on key issues numerous times. For example, their stances on alien life, evolution, birth control, women in the clergy, etc have all changed drastically when looking back a few decades. Science admits when wrong and looks to find the correct answer. It is the only honest way. Being stubborn and sticking with a certain view above all else, just because it hasn't changed, is not very logical. I believe people are saying they don't believe things blindly without proof. That isn't narcissistic in the least. I believe there are possibly an infinite amount of things out there that our brains cannot detect. The problem is we can't prove any of them at this point in our development as a species. I also don't see how that is an inflated view of humanity when you believe that all humans were created in the image of god and given the earth to do whatever we please. In my opinion, that view is far more egocentric than believing materialism with no creator. Something like 90% (being generous here) of the population was illiterate when most of the stories were written. When something is passed down orally, it leads to errors. It's like a big game of telephone. The message always changes by the end, sometimes completely. Can you name the thousands of people that witnessed Jesus and can verify the stories about him? Anybody can write a story. When you are claiming that it is a factual eyewitness account you need more than the story itself to prove it. What about the greek myths, the Egyptian gods, or Hindu gods? People claim eyewitness accounts for all of those as well, but nobody can prove it. Why does the story of Jesus hold more weight than the story of Horus? I don't agree with your argument that science has proved the necessity for a creator. There is a lot that science does not know. All we really know about the big bang is that all the known energy in the universe was very close together and then expanded. You don't know that the energy was put there. You don't know that the laws of physics were designed. You don't know that anything ever came from nothing. Science doesn't claim any of that or that the universe created itself. Science doesn't know. Based on the laws of physics, energy cannot be created or destroyed. If this is true, then the singularity prior to the big bang could not be created. Anyways, like I said, I believe in god, I just don't believe in ancient text as fact. I do think the big bang was set in motion by a god or group of gods, but admittedly it's just my opinion and I could easily be wrong. Much respect, brother!
Wilk Central, with all due respect, this thread is 81 pages long and you might want to know that a lot of the ball-busting directed towards 'Truth' came on the heels of his religio-centricity (claiming that the Catholic Church was the only religion that contained the "truest truth") as well as his downplaying (when not denying altogether) the unconscionable transgressions on the part of the clergy. Speaking as a Roman Catholic myself I found his "Catholicism = the only true faith" chauvinism embarrassing and his pedo-denial beyond the pale and as a result of that he's but an ecclesiastical piñata in my book and fair game. While I wouldn't expect you to go back 80 pages to get the full monty of this thread, 'Truth' be told, he's not exactly the "Christian among Lions" here. Kind regards. 'Truth' be told ....
You will try to deny this, but the fact of the matter is that psychology confirms the healthy benefits of traditional morality. The fact that so many people have been tricked into this adolescent notion that they can just indulge every lustful impulse is what keeps the shrinks busy, and their wallets lined. How many people who go to psychologists are ever cured? They just keep going back, because nothing short of good family values, traditional religious values, will ever satisfy us as human beings. BTW, you mistake pleasure for happiness, a common error today. You don't even know what you are missing...you are like the person who was born in a dark cave, and lived his whole life in that cave, and when someone from the outside world comes in and tells him all that he is missing, he thinks they are crazy, and he can't believe it. You need to embrace religious truth and discover the "outside world" that the rest of us enjoy; right now you are living in a cave and you think you are happy, but you don't have a clue what you are missing.
First, thank you for joining the discussion, and for your well-thought-out reply. All too rare in this thread, sadly. There's a lot for me to address, but let me first say that I too majored in Biology in college. While I never worked in the field myself, I taught Biology and Chemistry for a number of years. Right now I work with adults in rehab, many of whom have benefited greatly from religion in their recovery. First, as for NDE's, I'm not sure if you've seen this book, but I will post a summary of it here. It seems to present compelling scientific evidence for the existence of the afterlife: "Proof of Heaven A SCIENTIST’S CASE FOR THE AFTERLIFE Near-death experiences, or NDEs, are controversial. Thousands of people have had them, but many in the scientific community have argued that they are impossible. Dr. Eben Alexander was one of those people. A highly trained neurosurgeon who had operated on thousands of brains in the course of his career, Alexander knew that what people of faith call the “soul” is really a product of brain chemistry. NDEs, he would have been the first to explain, might feel real to the people having them, but in truth they are simply fantasies produced by brains under extreme stress. Then came the day when Dr. Alexander’s own brain was attacked by an extremely rare illness. The part of the brain that controls thought and emotion—and in essence makes us human—shut down completely. For seven days Alexander lay in a hospital bed in a deep coma. Then, as his doctors weighed the possibility of stopping treatment, Alexander’s eyes popped open. He had come back. Alexander’s recovery is by all accounts a medical miracle. But the real miracle of his story lies elsewhere. While his body lay in coma, Alexander journeyed beyond this world and encountered an angelic being who guided him into the deepest realms of super-physical existence. There he met, and spoke with, the Divine source of the universe itself. This story sounds like the wild and wonderful imaginings of a skilled fantasy writer. But it is not fantasy. Before Alexander underwent his journey, he could not reconcile his knowledge of neuroscience with any belief in heaven, God, or the soul. That difficulty with belief created an empty space that no professional triumph could erase. Today he is a doctor who believes that true health can be achieved only when we realize that God and the soul are real and that death is not the end of personal existence but only a transition. This story would be remarkable no matter who it happened to. That it happened to Dr. Alexander makes it revolutionary. No scientist or person of faith will be able to ignore it. Reading it will change your life." http://www.ebenalexander.com/books/proof-of-heaven/
OK, on each of your points: 1 and 2) There is obviously good, solid science, but there is also "junk science". And by that, I mean articles based on questionably-conducted studies, often including false conclusions, or slanted conclusions, to fit an agenda. Usually these are not found in peer-reviews journals, as you pointed out, but they are all too common in the online articles many people read and believe because they assume all "scientific" articles are based on good science. I learned this while getting my Biology degree, btw. It was pointed out in some of my classes. 3) You are absolutely right when you say that science can only deal with the physical world and what can be proven. That's been my point all along, actually...and I would add that there is a part of reality that we can't perceive directly with our 5 senses. Most scientists today agree that there is a spiritual realm, which of course they must ignore when talking about science, since science can only deal with the physical. But String Theory, which I have been studying on my own, postulates the existence of additional dimensions besides the usual 3 dimentions, which science cannot detect, but which scientific theories point to. Perhaps God, and the Spiritual in general, exist in one or more of these "parallel dimensions" that science now believes exist? 4) The Catholic Church has only been proven wrong when they step outside of their "jurisdiction", so to speak, and make claims about science. This has happened in the past, unfortunately, and has given religion a "black eye" when it comes to science. For example, the Church in medieval times claiming that the earth was flat, and opposing science. This was a big mistake made by some Popes and other religious leaders at the time. But here's the key thing: it did not affect the basic religious dogma that the Church teaches. The basic truths of the Catholic Church have remained unchanged since the beginning, because if these principles are indeed true, why change them to fit the "flavor of the month", or bend to public pressure? That's why the Church is being criticized today for "stubbornly" clinging to its teachings on things like abortion, birth control, gay marriage, etc. Just because popular opinion has changed on these issues does not mean the truth of our reality as human beings in the universe has changed. Truth is not a popularity contest, and authentic religion is not either; any religion that changes its teachings to fit popular opinion is no religion at all, and is meaningless. As for the miracles of Christ, they were passed from generation to generation as part of the oral tradition of the time; which, btw, was a rather sophisticated means of passing on historical truths before the written word was developed. People were much more careful to accurately transmit historical facts at that time, and so the stories were not likely to be changed much, if at all. Most people don't realize this, but I read an article written by a renowned historian recently that explained this better than I am doing right now. I'm not saying it's the same as science, but it is much more reliable than most people realize. 5) As for your last point, when you said this, I think you actually proved my point: "Based on the laws of physics, energy cannot be created or destroyed. If this is true, then the singularity prior to the big bang could not be created." So, if the singularity could not be created using scientific principles, then it seems to me that the only possible explanation must lie outside the "jurisdiction" of science. In other words, science proves that "nothing comes from nothing", yet in the beginning, something DID come from nothing! Because, logically, if something exists, it must have come into existence, otherwise there would be nothing there. The default is an empty vacuum, or nothingness. Why should there exist anything rather than nothing? Could something have "always existed"? Seems to me that makes no sense, from a scientific standpoint anyway. Therefore, there must be a supernatural reality, or a metaphysical reality, underlying the existence of the universe. Do you agree with this?
"Does the string theory have any connection with belief in God? In short, the relationship between string theory and God can be stated this way: If string theory is true, then God created it. That is the only definitive statement we can deduce from the Bible about string theory. The Bible doesn't mention whether God used atoms or elements or quarks or eleven dimensions and tiny strings of vibrating energy. All it says is that God made the world (Genesis 1). Some, however, try to use string theory to learn more about God—not about His character, but His location. God is not confined to the three spatial dimensions and one time dimension that we are (Isaiah 40:22). Heaven does not exist in a space that we can see, and God is outside of time. Some have taken this to mean that if we can't see God, and if we can't see most of the dimensions involved in string theory, then maybe God lives on those dimensions. The biggest problem with this theory is that it still places God inside the particular cosmos that was created for mankind. According to the latest version of string theory, all eleven dimensions (time, the three spatial dimensions, and seven others that are too condensed to see) are necessary for the universe as we know it. If that is the case, then all eleven dimensions are things God created, not places where God is confined. Thinking about God living in eleven dimensions and interacting with the four we have access to is an interesting mental exercise. It might explain why we can't see Him—an observer living in four dimensions cannot see all of an eleven-dimensional form, although ultimately God cannot be seen because He has chosen to be seen only through the eyes of faith (Hebrews 11:1). If string theory is true, it also might show how He can interact with the world in ways that we can't describe—and thus call "miracles." And, if God can move freely through all eleven dimensions, it would illustrate how He can be "outside" of time. For Him, leaving the confines of time would be no more difficult than if we were to leave the two-dimensional plane of the street and fall down through a manhole. Ultimately, we don't know. Scientists are just beginning to try to explain string theory—a theory that isn't even testable or observable and, therefore, is not yet even considered legitimate science. If string theory is true, then God created it. If it's not, it's at least an interesting metaphor in our attempt to understand God and how He works in creation. “And these are but the outer fringe of his works; how faint the whisper we hear of him! Who then can understand the thunder of his power?" (Job 26:14). http://www.gotquestions.org/string-theory.html
priceless dude!! priceless!! you're the one operating off of the writings of people (and I assure you they are the words of man, not any god) who lived in caves thousands of years ago. yeah my life on the sand here in Newport beach is totally empty and it sucks, oh the anguish and torment. please forgive me!! forgive me I have sinned so badly, what a crock haa haa haa!!! you've been dipping into that church wine a little too hard pal.
holy shit truth. . you need to stay away from string theory. you can't even grasp basic life shit, let alone advanced string theory. leave that for the experts instead of passing along to us what "catholic quarterly" or whatever has to say about it
"Proof" of Heaven because a doctor/scientist had visions while in a coma? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa _
I came back here ready to have another pointless go at it, and there you were doing such a better job than I. Thanks!! Truth4U-- here is what I meant by science and religion are incompatible-- you keep claiming to show "proof" that God exists and he created the universe and all that other shit. Then you also keep saying science can't prove it because it is "outside the realm of science." I am not religious at all. I am a Jew by birth and non-religious by choice. But I know that the WHOLE POINT of religion is that you take it completely on faith. That's the whole point. You don't need proof. You just believe. "Proof" is irrelevant. Meanwhile, the WHOLE POINT of science is that you take nothing on faith. You learn by formulating hypotheses, running repeatable experiments, compiling demonstrable evidence, accepting or rejecting hypotheses, and synthesizing findings. Didn't you see Contact? Stop trying to prove God. It cannot be done. You will not win any of us over with your ridiculous "proofs."
He is a top neurologist, and he reported that he was in a state of total brain inactivity, so his visions of the afterlife could not have come from the brain! Therefore, his experiences while in his coma must have been spiritual. This from a top scientist, but you can just laugh it off if you want, if it makes you feel better...
People keep misquoting me....I NEVER SAID that science can prove the existence of God! What I ACTUALLY said is that science proves the necessity of a supernatural creator. Read that carefully, there is a big difference: science cannot make God appear in a physical form that can be studied, because God is not a physical being, therefor scientists cannot "take a photo" of God, or prove his existence in a material way like that. But science CAN prove that there MUST BE A GOD, or supernatural entity, however you want to refer to it. Science can demonstrate, using logical extensions of provable theories, that there must have been something supernatural that started it all, that created the raw materials of the universe and, more importantly, orchestrated the progressive building up of the universe, most notably the transition from non-living raw materials to living creatures...it's ludicrous to think that this somehow all happened by itself, by accident, in a purely material cosmos, totally undirected, randomly, but somehow it all came together and directed itself to lead to what we experience today. In a series of random events, on average, half of the events will be anabolic (building up), but the other half will be catabolic (breaking down); in other words, it makes no sense that a majority of these random events would be sufficient to cause a progressive building up of the universe from primitive raw materials to more and more advanced structures. That's just basic science, along with statistics and probability. And couple that with the scientific law of entropy, which states that, over time, systems tend to break down, progress from more complex to less complex, not the other way around! And yet, for the universe to be created and to evolve in a steady fashion would require the direction of random, chance events, and the violation of the basic law of entropy. That, along with the fact that nothing comes from nothing, proves that the natural, physical universe alone cannot explain its own existence, or how it evolved progressively from energy and basic raw materials. How would the whole process have started in the first place just by accident, and be sustained to the point it is today? This requires a religious explanation, for what I hope you will now recognize are logical and obvious reasons. (though you may need some knowledge of science to understand these points; I'm not sure how well I translated all of this for the lay person) Faith is supported by reason. This has been well-established by many intellectuals for centuries (you can start by reading Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine for brilliant explanations of this principle).
