The Trinity (but not how you see it.)

[Luce NDs]

Again! You don't seem to be getting this, it isn't my perspective. It is what belief is.

That is because it takes control of its adherents, and sometimes causes those good people to harm, that is religious belief in a nutshell.

It's not it can be, it is subjective.
And that it shapes its adherents' interactions can be extremely detrimental to others of a different ilk and even sometimes of the same ilk.

I care about people because I put people above imaginary things like gods, and other fanciful things.
The beliefs that they hold are dangerous to them and others, yet most would gladly (due to the indoctrination) go on unknowingly causing harm to others "believing" they are doing the right thing.

People's beliefs are part of the journey but they shouldn't be, knowledge should. With knowledge, there is no believing bad things that can make them cause harm to others.

By not letting the cat out of the bag. We are all the same in every aspect of our lives, bar that one thing.
So we avoid bringing it up with people who hold such dangerous beliefs. and let them think that we are the same as them.
However now gladly people are more tolerant of other people's beliefs, but sadly the ugly part of religious belief still rears its head all too often.

Thus we descend into unbelievable anarchy as a hole ... there being nothing to it ... often just hot Ayre ... that aroma in the night of the unbelievable being poked ... to see if there's anything there! Prepare for surprise and rising excitement that could kill ... that's the bad endorphins! They can explode the entire item of contention as subjective ... endorphins need t me classified and balanced or stuff happens ... plain pathological review! Many never review anything as they couldn't see it on the fist pas ... initial obtrusion? Why? that also is obtuse ... perhaps to the level of occult if you stop being an observer ... black-out occurs ... Nacht then reversal in part is natch Ural! It ripples through areas ...

There cannot be a thought without a peculiar story about it to dress it up ... as bare thoughts are distasteful to those feeling above them ... so we dress them down ... in a mad cycling event ... reciprocation ... insidious!

 

[jimkenney12]

Irrelevant! All I've said is, it is an automatic label given from a theist perspective, once a person becomes a nonbeliever.
Just like you believing in god automatically labels you as a theist.

Irrelevant! How many reasons they adopt has no bearing on how they came to be called atheist, they all started as nonbelievers, and once they are that, they are automatically label atheist.

Who assigns the label?

 

[Pavlos Maros]

The Theist technically (it being the opposite of the word.) But society most likely, places them into two camps, the for's and the against, the yin and the yang, the pro and the con. To discern which side they are on. But theist or atheist are not labels, either side chose, not in the wider sense that is.

 

[jimkenney12]

You believe there is no god, no entity of any kind, separate from but with special connections to physical reality. The non existence of any kind of god cannot be proven but it can be believed.

Many people do believe in some kind of other. Some of those god's maje no sense to me but they are helpful to sone and harmful to others.o

Other concepts seem possible. Scientists realize they know less about physical reality than they know.

 

[Luce NDs]

You believe there is no god, no entity of any kind, separate from but with special connections to physical reality. The non existence of any kind of god cannot be proven but it can be believed.

Many people do believe in some kind of other. Some of those god's maje no sense to me but they are helpful to sone and harmful to others.o

Other concepts seem possible. Scientists realize they know less about physical reality than they know.

Sort of hints at our abilities regarding illusion and delusion ... right? When such skills are achieved your are out of here and appear as corruption to power searches ... bad spots to be in ... like mindless stages that allow cross ova and weep age ... sloe's tuff ...

 

[Mendalla]

Scientists realize they know less about physical reality than they know.

Which has nothing to do with whether there is a God. Science is really about a method for finding what we don't know rather than just a collection of what we do know. If they don't know something, that means more work is needed, not that you stick "God" in there and be done with it. That leads to "God of the gaps" which is, to be honest, the source of a lot of people losing faith. A God that doesn't require gaps in science is more meaningful than one that is explained using those gaps. Process handles it nicely with a God who exists hand in hand with the physical universe explained by science rather being an explanation for it themselves.

 

[Jaebius]

Which has nothing to do with whether there is a God. Science is really about a method for finding what we don't know rather than just a collection of what we do know. If they don't know something, that means more work is needed, not that you stick "God" in there and be done with it. That leads to "God of the gaps" which is, to be honest, the source of a lot of people losing faith. A God that doesn't require gaps in science is more meaningful than one that is explained using those gaps. Process handles it nicely with a God who exists hand in hand with the physical universe explained by science rather being an explanation for it themselves.

Thank you for sharing your view on the relationship between science and faith. I believe that God's the Creator of all things. My faith teaches me that God's King and his ways are higher than ours.

Let's recognize that science and faith are complementary. Scientific knowledge's pursuit leads us to a greater appreciation of God’s handiwork.

The "God of the gaps” concept suggests that God's only present in the areas where science has yet to provide answers. This view's problematic, as it limits our grasping of God’s omnipresence and omnipotence. Instead, let's see God as the foundation of all that exists.

I affirm that all truth's God’s truth, whether it's revealed through Scripture or through the natural world. Science's discoveries must lead us to worship God.

A God who's King over all Creation's the source of all wisdom. Our exploration of the natural world must deepen our faith

 

[Mendalla]

Let's recognize that science and faith are complementary. Scientific knowledge's pursuit leads us to a greater appreciation of God’s handiwork.

Well put. It is certainly a healthier view than than the anti-science point of view we hear from some segments of Christianity. Definitely where my grandfather (minister and theologian) fell.

The "God of the gaps” concept suggests that God's only present in the areas where science has yet to provide answers. This view's problematic, as it limits our grasping of God’s omnipresence and omnipotence. Instead, let's see God as the foundation of all that exists.

Yep, it is a problem from both sides, science and faith. Somehow, though, people keep going "ah, but science can't explain this" with the implication that this "gap" leaves room for God. Your solution from the faith side works nicely.

Science's discoveries must lead us to worship God.

Which is really where I fell for a time late in my Christian years. Science is exploring God's universe and glorifies, rather than denying, God. And that's where I would probably land again if I regained faith in some kind of deity.

 

[Luce NDs]

Thank you for sharing your view on the relationship between science and faith. I believe that God's the Creator of all things. My faith teaches me that God's King and his ways are higher than ours.

Let's recognize that science and faith are complementary. Scientific knowledge's pursuit leads us to a greater appreciation of God’s handiwork.

The "God of the gaps” concept suggests that God's only present in the areas where science has yet to provide answers. This view's problematic, as it limits our grasping of God’s omnipresence and omnipotence. Instead, let's see God as the foundation of all that exists.

I affirm that all truth's God’s truth, whether it's revealed through Scripture or through the natural world. Science's discoveries must lead us to worship God.

A God who's King over all Creation's the source of all wisdom. Our exploration of the natural world must deepen our faith

Recall that the great mystery gave us potential light for a vision (once known as observation, or regard-ah!) and look what the forces did to that in a glaring instant of flame ... like justice ... perogies .... went down like a couch potato. They do say learning is a payen and thus that's out there ...

One does need to tye the Deis together ... as they are dazzling! Leaves may stoop ified if not astounded by what was observed ... and all that without questions!

 

[Jaebius]

Well put. It is certainly a healthier view than than the anti-science point of view we hear from some segments of Christianity. Definitely where my grandfather (minister and theologian) fell.


Yep, it is a problem from both sides, science and faith. Somehow, though, people keep going "ah, but science can't explain this" with the implication that this "gap" leaves room for God. Your solution from the faith side works nicely.


Which is really where I fell for a time late in my Christian years. Science is exploring God's universe and glorifies, rather than denying, God. And that's where I would probably land again if I regained faith in some kind of deity.

Thank you for your kind words and thoughtful views. It would be interesting some time to learn more about your grandfather and his work. Have you written anything about him?

Your spiritual journey's commendable. It's my hope and prayer that you keep finding peace and strength. May you be blessed as you keep searching for truth

 

[Mendalla]

It would be interesting some time to learn more about your grandfather and his work. Have you written anything about him?

Short version? UCCan minister ordained in the twenties not long after union. He grew up Methodist since that branch of the family originated in Wales. Served three charges that I recall, all in Southern Ontario. Served as president of Hamilton Conference in the 50s and 60s (I know he presided at the dedication of my family's church and was involved in starting St. Paul's College at the then-new University of Waterloo, both in that capacity). Finished his ministry as Secretary of the Division of Ministry, Personnel, and Education at UCCan head office. He held a B.Div., MA in philosophy, and ThD (Doctor of Theology). Haven't read the ThD thesis but his Master's thesis was on Kant. Also some honourary doctorates from a few universities, mostly ones with UCCan affiliate colleges that he helped found.

After retirement edited and partly wrote a series of books of daily devotions (edited the series but wrote less and less himself as the series went on), helped Emmanuel College with fundraising including guest preaching at churches to raise awareness, became involved in a number of projects related to ministry to seniors. And was a very active, involved grandparent to boot (well, active as he could be given distance and busyness). And a very thoughtful, intellectual minister of a generation that seemed to value that in a minister maybe more than people do today.

We had some good conversations once I started taking courses in university on philosophy and religion. As far as science goes, he read Hawking's Brief History of Time the Christmas before he died and inherited that copy along with other books from his collection (I was the only family member interested in the theology and other more intellectual works). All our conversations on the subject, which happened frequently since various fields of science were pet interests of mine, tended to be around science and faith/theology as complementary rather than competing.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

You believe there is no god,

No wrong. I'm not convinced that there is a god, belief has nothing to do with it.

no entity of any kind,

No wrong again see above.

separate from but with special connections to physical reality.

You would need to convince me that is true, and you cant hence why I'm remain unconvinced.

The non existence of any kind of god cannot be proven but it can be believed.

Whether it can be believed is irrelevant as to whether it can be proven. The non-existence of anything can't be proven. and as such anything can be believed. So it's a moot point.
The existence of a thing can be conclusively proven by producing one single instance of the thing. When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist.
The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.
From this we can say that there are only two possible outcomes to be made about the existence of a thing:
The thing exists. Or it is unknown if the thing exists or not. it being believed or probable is moot at this point.

Many people do believe in some kind of other.

So what!

Some of those god's maje no sense to me but they are helpful to sone and harmful to others.

Again so what! What does that have to do with the OP?

Other concepts seem possible.

Any concept is possible when it is simply believed.

Scientists realize they know less about physical reality than they know.

And that is what makes science true. But what has reality got to do with belief? The two are mutually exclusive?

 

[Waterfall]

Does experience count as evidence to you Pavlovs? Just asking.

 

[Mendalla]

Does experience count as evidence to you Pavlovs? Just asking.

Scientifically, experience is only evidence if it can be replicated by another person with the same result. If I look at the moon and you look at the moon and Pavlos looks at the moon, we see the same thing. If you see a face on the moon and the two of us don't even knowing that you say you did, that's not a replicable result and we cannot conclusively say there is a face.

This is where agnosticism comes in. Things like the existence and nature of God are generally subjective, i.e. there's no replicable evidence, so must be matters of faith and are unprovable. You can believe but you cannot expect another to believe just based on your experience. That applies to mystical experience, too. You may say that weird vision you had came from God but the only part of it that is probably replicable by another person is the firing of neurons in a certain part of the brain, which only proves you had AN experience, not whether it was a divine one. But I cannot prove it wasn't divine, either. Maybe God did cause those neurons to fire that way.

But then we get to "God of the gaps". Maybe we don't know why you had those neurons firing that way, so you attribute that vision to God. But then further research shows you actually had a small tumour hidden in that part of the brain and it disturbed the firing pattern of the neurons. Now there is no gap for God to fill so the vision ceases to be evidence even subjectively.

 

[Waterfall]

Scientifically, experience is only evidence if it can be replicated by another person with the same result. If I look at the moon and you look at the moon and Pavlos looks at the moon, we see the same thing. If you see a face on the moon and the two of us don't even knowing that you say you did, that's not a replicable result and we cannot conclusively say there is a face.

This is where agnosticism comes in. Things like the existence and nature of God are generally subjective, i.e. there's no replicable evidence, so must be matters of faith and are unprovable. You can believe but you cannot expect another to believe just based on your experience. That applies to mystical experience, too. You may say that weird vision you had came from God but the only part of it that is probably replicable by another person is the firing of neurons in a certain part of the brain, which only proves you had AN experience, not whether it was a divine one. But I cannot prove it wasn't divine, either. Maybe God did cause those neurons to fire that way.

But then we get to "God of the gaps". Maybe we don't know why you had those neurons firing that way, so you attribute that vision to God. But then further research shows you actually had a small tumour hidden in that part of the brain and it disturbed the firing pattern of the neurons. Now there is no gap for God to fill so the vision ceases to be evidence even subjectively.

So if an atheist or agnostic has an experience that I haven't had or experienced it the same way, I should tell him to prove it?

 

[Mendalla]

So if an atheist or agnostic has an experience that I haven't had or experienced it the same way, I should tell him to prove it?

No. Just recognize it is a subjective experience same as they should recognize your religious experience that way. Subjective experiences are legitimate experiences but they cannot be used to prove something to another person. But if it is something you can test with a controlled experiment or by making an observation (e.g. my moon example), then you can prove it yourself.

 

[Jaebius]

Scientifically, experience is only evidence if it can be replicated by another person with the same result. If I look at the moon and you look at the moon and Pavlos looks at the moon, we see the same thing. If you see a face on the moon and the two of us don't even knowing that you say you did, that's not a replicable result and we cannot conclusively say there is a face.

This is where agnosticism comes in. Things like the existence and nature of God are generally subjective, i.e. there's no replicable evidence, so must be matters of faith and are unprovable. You can believe but you cannot expect another to believe just based on your experience. That applies to mystical experience, too. You may say that weird vision you had came from God but the only part of it that is probably replicable by another person is the firing of neurons in a certain part of the brain, which only proves you had AN experience, not whether it was a divine one. But I cannot prove it wasn't divine, either. Maybe God did cause those neurons to fire that way.

But then we get to "God of the gaps". Maybe we don't know why you had those neurons firing that way, so you attribute that vision to God. But then further research shows you actually had a small tumour hidden in that part of the brain and it disturbed the firing pattern of the neurons. Now there is no gap for God to fill so the vision ceases to be evidence even subjectively.

Appreciate the thoughtful consideration given to evidence's nature. My faith acknowledges that God's nature's a matter of faith.

My belief in God transcends what can be measured. Faith's personal. Our experiences are real.

Let's remember that our grasping of God's not confined to the gaps in scientific knowledge. God's the Creator of all things. my faith's enriched as I see the wonder of God’s creation.

I value both faith and reason. I believe that God has given us minds to explore the world, and hearts to experience his presence in ways that go beyond human grasping.

Blessings

 

[Waterfall]

No. Just recognize it is a subjective experience same as they should recognize your religious experience that way. Subjective experiences are legitimate experiences but they cannot be used to prove something to another person. But if it is something you can test with a controlled experiment or by making an observation (e.g. my moon example), then you can prove it yourself.

So a congregation (or some in it) that experiences God during a service are hallucinating and numbers don't count for verification, only in something you can see or touch?

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Does experience count as evidence to you Pavlovs? Just asking.

If it can be proven, of course, it does. However, if it can not be proven, then it is just hearsay. And as such a waste of space.

 

[Mendalla]

So a congregation (or some in it) that experiences God during a service are hallucinating and numbers don't count for verification, only in something you can see or touch?

Not saying they are hallucinating, I am saying that you cannot count it as scientific evidence. THat is, it's not an experiment or observation that you can repeat reliably to confirm the hypothesis that it is God that was experienced. If you want to present it as subjective, experiential evidence, by all means do so. But don't be upset that not everyone accepts that kind of evidence. Again, that's my agnostic position: that there is no way to OBJECTIVELY, SCIENTIFICALLY prove God's existence and that it is a matter of subjective experience and faith.