Total posts: 2,869
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
You chose to focus primarily on NDE's when I gave you many things to consider in my OP. You never even acknowledged the other points I made. You can believe that kids believing in Santa is an equal equivalent but that is intellectually dishonest. And yes, UFO sightings should be considered as evidence. Why would you assume we are the only creatures God created in an entire universe full of planets and solar systems?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
TRN's assessment of you to be honest. You are not debating in good faith, which is why you don't provide evidence or even back up your premises, and dodge everything thrown at you out of fear of being proven wrong. You are not seeking any truth, you are merely seeking to proselytize because perhaps you believe that you are equal to god and already know everything, so you think you have no room to learn. I disagree that you are god and all knowing though.
Awe, no need to go any further then because I don't want to cause any conflict or tension toward each other, like I tell others there are two ways to find out who is full of shyt. You can wait until you slip from the material body or you can consider and get involved with spirituality at a level you become familiar and comfortable with. If you can't tell I'm genuine and here on good faith you are a poor judge of character.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
The number of people being fooled into thinking a psychological phenomenon is not merely perception but reality,
How can you intellectually make such a claim lol? that is really an assumptive claim. One I find quite absurd, to dismiss the direct observation of untold number of witnesses.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Consciousness is not what makes God who He is.
If God is not conscious, please explain what God is then. What precedes the consciousness (observation) of God?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I'm not saying God is contingent on anything, I'm saying God IS the Observer, the Ultimate Observer=the Ultimate Reality. Everything else is contingent on that first.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
EVIDENCE
"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
something that furnishes proof : testimony
an outward sign : indication
one who bears witness especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof."
TESTIMONY
"evidence or proof provided by the existence or appearance of something.
firsthand authentication of a fact : evidence
Evidence in support of a fact or assertion; proof.
a declaration of truth or fact
evidence testifying to something:"
Evidence-
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
I used to meditate and experience astral traveling. It felt very real and I could swear I was looking down on myself, but common sense and logic say that it is more likely it was just my mind playing tricks on me. The sensation of astral traveling was not evidence for it, and it would be stupid to call it evidence
Thanks for the opinion. I'm sorry your own experiences aren't convincing, perhaps if you were to evaluate the number of claims involving all of spirituality you might say to yourself...ya know, what's going on here? am I stupid or is there a reality involved? does my conscious being really end with the death of the physical body? am I just a series of impulses and neural firing?
Experiences can vary from subtle to extremely intense but when you evaluate them as a whole you might find it more convincing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The fact you dismiss evidence as what it is defined as is uneducated. It being accurate depends upon the source and the claim, it's irrelevant...IT IS evidence.
The point here, is to match up evidence that correlates with the nature of that which transcends the physical sense perception. Whether you find it convincing is subjective, and most likely filtered through your bias towards the subject. That's sad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
In so much as Creation and evolution might be regarded as opposing hypotheses.Nonetheless creation starts at the beginning of something
Smart fella, good thinking.
BTW evolution is surely compatible with a creation hypothesis. It's a shame that it's considered opposing, when in fact you are absolutely correct creation has a starting point to get from nothing to something. God doesn't just poof things into existence I don't care what book says what.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Creation is not an opposing thesis, it is an unnecessary thesis.
That is of course if you accept that processes occur by themselves and can't answer why. To put it bluntly...bull shyt. "Unnecessary" is subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
1. personal/experience is not persuasive to me, and I think it should be left out of the discussion, unless you have some way to show that it is something I can replicate and trust the results of. I don't think you would trust my personal experiences to guide you in your beliefs either.
That's ridiculous, testimonials are a huge part of evidence, actually half of what is considered as evidence. Personal observation is one of the few things you can be sure of. Considering you have a sound mind and good intelligence.
2. correlated sources- If you have sources that correlate these facts, I would appreciate if you provide me with the sources or tell me where to find them, so I have the opportunity to gain the same knowledge that you apparently have.
Sure, but you have to be willing to at least consider those who are an expertise in this area, even if that source happens to be a religious source.
3. What evidence? Saying you have evidence is not convincing, you need to show evidence to be persuasive.
NDE's, spiritual encounters, religious sources, OBE's, soul travel, paranormal activity. All these things line up with the nature of what exists beyond the physical sense perception. If you're not open to that, then it's okay to remain ignorant of it. However, that's not a good approach to understanding something.
4. I'm not sure what this even means.
I use cross referencing through a wide range of sources to determine what could be true.
5. spirituality seems like the personal experience argument and can probably be lumped in with that.
Spirituality is the method we use to reach that which transcends the physical sense perception, as opposed to the scientific method.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I don't know exactly what you are focusing on here, but this discussion is going nowhere fast. If this is not something you ever wish to consider then I don't know what you are doing here other than to undermine all religious and spiritual topics.
Created:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
NDE's are good evidence because of our own normal experience with consciousness. When have you ever left the physical body and brain and observed not only your own physical body but also everything going on around it?
Now, this correlates perfectly with religious propositions, does it not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
NDE's happening 4 minutes after death are to be expected.
That's not what I claimed, NDE's occur HOURS after brain death, even up to days ma'am.
That's why I was going to link you a source if you were interested.
"Permanent brain damage begins after only 4 minutes without oxygen, and death can occur as soon as 4 to 6 minutes later"
Yes I'm aware it CAN go up to ten minutes, irrelevant to what I'm going to show you.
NDE's are interesting but it is not evidence for an after life.
Absolutely they are included as evidence that the conscious soul survives a physical death. But, if you're not interested or in doubt no reason to discuss it. Let me know if you have any questions.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
to accept this common sense conclusion as absolute fact and never, ever question it, no matter what other information he might be able to find on his own?
But I never claimed you should approach this discussion that way did I?
Here's a better question....according to what we have discussed in this thread
Common sense-
means ability to reach intelligent conclusions. sense implies a reliable ability to judge and decide with soundness, prudence, and intelligence.
Going by the above description, would you say that common sense can be mostly correct or mostly wrong? in other words is it something you can trust or something you can doubt?
If you go 50/50 that leaves you with 50% room to consider my proposition. In which case why don't we move forward instead of backward?
Again, I'm only asking that you consider what I'm saying, not that you just accept it. Why be so rigid?
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Whether he is correct or not isn't the point. The point is that he is trying (poorly) to convince people that they already agree with him when such is obviously not the case.
Yes that's true.
You are familiar with Mopacs script right? The whole "you believe reality is real therefore you believe God exists" bit that he does?
Yes, which is why I'm interfering with this thread. Perhaps read my posts herein.
Here's the deal though, Mopac believes God exists despite what you claim you believe. If God exists then an Ultimate Reality exists, that's a no-brainer. I guess what he's trying to say is that sense God exists despite your unbelief, so does the Ultimate Reality whether you claim it or not. What he doesn't understand, is that it is a poor way to reason with someone who has yet to accept that God exists, and it's unfair to claim you are insane for not having that awareness.
He doesn't feel it is necessary to convince you first that God exists, to accept that an Ultimate Reality exists....*shrugs*
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Sure, but why limit it to just that? can common sense be right?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
You are describing the nature of created things
Not at all, how is you don't comprehend that God is also an observer? how can that be so difficult for you to grasp? when did I claim God was created?
, not God. Created things are contingent on observation. You are in effect saying the universe is bigger than God
Nope, you haven't followed what I'm writing.
, as Merriam-webster defines the universe as "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated"This is not panentheism, this is pantheism.
What I described is panentheism….."is the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond space and time."
That includes the observation of God.
The Ultimate Reality can not be a contingent existence. If God requires observation to exist, that means observation is a greater reality. If observation or any reality for that matter is a greater reality, then that greater reality would be The Ultimate Reality.
You can't have an Ultimate Reality without first an Ultimate Observer Mopac. This is common sense. What else do you believe God is?
I'm not sure if you even understand the term you are using, can you link me to a source where you are getting your information? preferably a source from your own Church? I'm already familiar with the definition so please supply a source that correlates with your understanding of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Gotcha, I wouldn't see any reason he would reject it. The forums most used section deserves a more interesting title.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Please tell me you are not a trial lawyer. Actually, I know you're not a trial lawyer, that's said in jest.You know it was common sense once that humans sneezing was in fact our bodies trying to expel demons, and common sense dictated that if you said "bless you" fast enough, the demon you just sneezed out couldn't get back in? My point is "it's common sense" is not in and of itself an argument. It's a place to start your hypothesis, and then you try to prove it wrong (NOT PROVE IT RIGHT). I don't outright dismiss common sense answers, like it's common sense that the GrecoRoman pantheon is clearly still operating the earth all the time. Otherwise why else would there be famines or floods? It's just common sense that Neptune didn't get his fair share of sacrifices from Sri Lanka through 2005, so, what else was he supposed to do? He sent a tsunami and killed 250K people. Common sense!
Wow, how about we first stick to what I write?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
(as you have done, as EternlView does)
If you wish to know the origins of my beliefs and experiences just ask. The common sense approach is not for me, it's for you. That's not how I arrived where I am, that's just a way to get you to look at things differently, or at the very least consider.
That is what makes these conversations so difficult, all the unnecessary assumptions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Did you know that the brain shuts down just four minutes after the heart stops beating? and that NDE experiences (outside the physical body) take place long after that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Actually I just noticed you mentioned NDEs
Lol well I hope you read everything I wrote...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Actually I just noticed you mentioned NDEs. For you debate. I think NDEs as evidence would be a fun debate topic. If not I can just write about it here
Are you asking me for a formal debate? I don't have the time to commit to that so if you'd like we can discuss it here. I'm pretty familiar with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
You asserted consciousness cannot be destroyed. What are your premises for this?
Personal experience/intuition/observation
Correlated sources
Correlating evidence
Cross referencing sources
Spirituality
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Are we still going to change the title to this section as topics related to "spirituality and religious concepts"? I thought that was the plan...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
I don't know how consciousness works
Then all this worry and fuss for nothing. I mean I know you think it's some coping mechanism or some fear of death that anyone would propose that your conscious being cannot be destroyed and transcends a physical death so that is very unfortunate to begin with. Because anything we happen to discuss about it will be filtered through that assumption. However if you are ignorant of it why make all the unnecessary assumptions? why not just be open to new or different information? isn't that how we learn and progress?
Nevertheless consciousness, like energy cannot be created or destroyed. You come out of a conscious Reality that is eternal, awareness is the backdrop behind all of life and the entire universe and as a matter of interest both awareness and energy co-exist...that is the very nature of your soul and the nature of the Creator and you can never be anything else. If you want a bit of evidence consider NDE's and spirituality (transcendent experiences) as a whole, there is more evidence that the soul survives a physical death than any other subject. I can link you to an overwhelming data base of NDE's and the corresponding medical facts to back up the accounts.
You can also relax and experience your own conscious being and decipher whether or not what I'm saying is legit. Since you first are a whole conscious entity and not a series of impulses created by the material body your own intuition can infer that what I'm proposing is true and genuine. The only thing that can possibly be an obstacle here is conditioned thinking so you have to be willing to work around that factor, at the same time understand that the nature of consciousness is an open question within the scientific community so many of its postulations are basically conjecture and conclusions based upon an incomplete understanding about the soul and the physical body and how they work together.
But believe it or not you are not a series of impulses and neural firing you are a conscious being that occupies a physical body. You can compare consciousness to energy and or electricity they both exist within form and independent of form, when your physical body ceases to maintain your experience through it your conscious soul exits that form. You aren't going anywhere, you will continue to experience life within the created worlds for a long, long time.
The brain is nothing more than a conduit, conductor or component that confines your experience to this body so that you may interact within this world but it does not create your conscious being. So while you can detect "activity" within the brain while you occupy it, it's the same as when you see "activity" within a circuit board while electricity channels through it. Nothing more nothing less.
Your soul needs a good conduit that is alive and active because the conscious soul is energetic and alive and not dead, this is why you have the brain you have and the nervous system you experience but they are just tools that you use to navigate through this life. Because of that factor the catch here is that you believe it's the body that is creating your experience lol, when in fact it's just a vehicle. This is was makes your experience here complete though, because it helps the individual focus on this life and become productive, this is what confines and restricts your awareness and reduces your experience from a much larger reality just as we confine electricity to be utilized and reduced to occupancy within machinery ect ect. But, on the other hand you are meant to experience all of what you are and where you originated, however your spiritual development will be a process and a journey of becoming aware.
And I say all this basically to let you know you have nothing to worry about and if anything here interests you let me know and I can elaborate on it. If this is just nonsense to you then just ignore it because I'd rather not be blamed for assumptions that are untrue, if you have any curiosity about my motivations for the things I've learned just ask.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Mopac believes that reality exists and that it is conscious
It's not a far fetched proposition to consider that reality is indeed aware, and even aware on a much larger scale than our own personal observation. This can be easily accepted by looking realistically at the processes involved within our own universe and experience.
If you can accept that energy exists non-created and omnipresent then how is it you are unable to consider so does awareness? why would you want to do that? because essentially you already accept that somehow inanimate forces produce intelligent processes...we make it easier for you and more realistic by adding awareness to energy. Now you have a logical proposition.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Sure, many spiritual sources have great information. I approach religion from more a wholistic or omnist view, recognizing many of them have legit observations and knowledge.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
God exists independent of the Bible, as with all spiritual texts. The Bible is just the interpretation of that Reality or even transcendent society, as with all religious observations albeit accurate or not. So the Ultimate Reality is more a universal term, whether or not it fits with any religious proposition is a second issue or matter.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
It is not an obvious truism that reality is conscious....because he knows he has no good justification for this claim.
This is where we would begin to piece everything together using correlation. I would argue the very nature of energy, as it operates within our own universe is key here. How does energy produce what it does? how does it create form? how does it produce intelligence?
In Theistic terms awareness does not need form, it exists as energy exists both within form and independent of form. Energy is not created and not destroyed...it's omnipresent. These are the very characteristics of God. It is by conscious activity that energy exists at all, awareness generates energy and both the conscious Reality of God and energy co-exist together eternally.
I can make this claim because of how energy operates in creation, it's an intelligent action/process. Energy is what God uses to create form within the universe.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
We wouldn't say The Ultimate Reality exists within God, we would say The Ultimate Reality is God.
If the Ultimate Reality does not exist within God then it exists outside of God and therefore is greater than the Observer. Observation is what makes reality possible. If you wish to say the Ultimate Reality IS god I have no real problem with that, but it is still from observation, that is the observation of God. Maybe we are getting into semantics here. Keeping it simple so people understand what we mean, only the conscious Reality of God can be the Ultimate Reality, that is the Reality as God observes it.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
The Ultimate Reality is not contingent on observation. Consciousness and awareness is not what make something real.
That's the only thing that makes it real lol, without observation there can be no Ultimate Reality. Observation comes from first awareness, everything else comes after that.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
One has to be able to connect God with this supposed ultimate reality, and I think it is possible but Mopac feels it's unnecessary to do so, or he believes whatever he is saying to be obviously true just by definition, which it is only to those who have accepted God exists.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
If this is a characteristic of the Ultimate Reality that Mopac agrees with, then it is an excellent illustration of my problem with his argument. It is undeniable that reality exists. Thus far, Mopac's argument holds. However, many or most people would not agree that reality, or the Ultimate Reality, has consciousness. So when Mopac tells someone that believing in the Ultimate Reality means that, by extension, they believe in God, or at least that they should believe in God in order to be logically consistent, Mopac and whoever he's talking to at the time aren't talking about the same thing when they say, "Ultimate Reality." One thinks the Ultimate Reality has consciousness; the other doesn't. So while Mopac's understanding of the Ultimate Reality is God, the other person's isn't. Calling them the same name doesn't make them the same.
That's exactly true, which is why I tell Mopac the term is useless until one first accepts God exists. I don't know why he keeps using it as a means to argue his position, it's silly. An Ultimate Reality though, would be useless unless that Reality could be observed by an Ultimate Observer. To non-believers it's just reality as it is, they don't equate that with the conscious reality of the Creator.....yet.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Maybe, but only if you understand it the same way Mopac does. Otherwise, it won't help me understand what Mopac means when he uses the term "Ultimate Reality." Let me ask Mopac if your explanation is in line with how he understands it.
Okay
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
What characteristics does it have?
Consciousness, awareness to start with. That's what makes it the Ultimate Reality, it's reality as it is observed independent of our own observations.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
It is an unawareness of what God means.
Not really, it is an unacceptance that God exists. The term is easy to accept once God's existence is accepted, then it makes sense. They don't believe there is an awareness that encompasses all of creation. They won't accept there is any conscious Reality that exists independent of individual material form.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Basically in a nutshell it's the conscious reality of God we are proposing that would be the ultimate reality. Since nothing exists outside of that or independent of that it is the ultimate, sounds cheesy I know lol, but it's actually legit. Mopac just doesn't know how to articulate that for whatever reason.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Can common sense be right? if common sense COULD be right, wouldn't that be the first step in accepting something? so if that's the case why do you dismiss it?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
In otherwords, the kind of skepticism I am met with is not rational, in fact it is quite insane.
That's where you go off the tracks Mopac, the fact you don't see that is insane. It's actually insane to try and force the term on anyone who has yet to FIRST accept God exists, otherwise again, it's a meaningless phrase.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I completely understand what the Ultimate Reality means because I already have accepted it. However it means nothing to anyone accept you and I if you are unable to connect God with that Reality. So while you keep spouting it, it's just an empty claim for those who don't accept God exists. Once they accept God exists then the term has meaning, otherwise it is a pointless term.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
That sounds pantheistic or panantheistic. Am I correct, or am I assuming too much?
Correct. Panentheism would be the correct term here.
Before I answer whether or not God is the Ultimate Reality, could you define what you mean by the "Ultimate Reality"?
If I could help here it just means reality as it exists independent of our own personal observations. If God is proposed as omnipresent, which God is, it means the reality God observes is the Ultimate Reality....meaning there is nowhere something exists where the Creator is not aware. Basically everything that exists, exists within the Reality of God, God encompasses all that exists. There is no reality which exists independent of God, out of which all things originate. The Hindu description of Brahman is a great example of what we mean by an Ultimate Reality.
God exists both within creation and independent of creation. All things exist within the Creator. So this reality as it exists within God is considered the "ultimate" as opposed to a fraction of it or a piece of it and nothing is outside of that, God observes all things at once at all times everywhere.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
If you're comparing my reasoning to Mopac's claim you aren't paying attention. Mopac is unable to connect God to this "Ultimate Reality" so it's an empty claim. Whereas I connect God to intelligent processes which we are able to observe with our own eyes. Admittedly it's an interpretation (as is your position) but that does not follow that it is untrue, one interpretation is obviously superior to the other. If you have a better idea of how anyone could connect the dots for you to have you consider a Creator exists I'm all ears.
Since obviously there is no way the scientific method could reach that information for you or anyone else and I can't pull a demonstration out of my azz for you to be convinced I'm left with spoon feeding you commonsense and rationale (which you delightfully scoff at).
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
God fits in the gaps because he exists Ludo, it's not special pleading it's commonsense but you can label it and mock it all you like. It's funny how when someone puts forth good reasoning, correlation and something that makes sense you just label it and laugh, well the laugh is on you because your position is even more absurd. What you accept as rational minds is subjective so that means very little here. I'm just trying to put together a foundation for you but it's obvious you are sold out to just guessing. That's fine good for you.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
If you take all the teachings of Jesus into consideration it's obvious what he is stating in both verses, they can be compatible if you consider you have both an earthly life as well as a heavenly or spiritual life. If you read the entire chapter of Luke this verse is obviously about principle, or priorities even though you want to focus squarely on this one as you usually do.
It's a challenge to the individual to think about where their priorities lay, and are you willing to put God your Maker before all other things. In doing so it's not a literal command to hate your family in light of Jesus' command to love others, it is a challenge to think about your relation to God and who you answer to. As you shift your priorities towards God per say all other things fall in their proper place.
That's my take on it of course, and one I know for a fact you will not accept nevertheless there it is. And now you will begin the process of repeating yourself over and over so at that point one has to wonder why you even ask these things. So what is more likely here, that Jesus blatantly contradicts his own message or is he pointing out an underlying principle? I'm going with the latter. Note that in the beginning of that chapter it says "7 And he put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them."....
Also in another passage Jesus says " "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you." 33"Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked. 34Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 35Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."
This is the same basic principle he puts forth.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I look at the evidence as to how life developed, how this planet formed, etc. etc. and make my assessments based on the inference from evidence. I've never seen compelling evidence for any god at all
The evidence is in your own statement above, I've been over this with you a couple times and you seem to basically ignore it. Life developed and planets form is key right there, both those terms are an indicator of a Creator. This of course is an interpretation of how you personally view the evidence but then it comes down to which one makes more sense, which one fits better. This is how you begin a case for God on a surface level. Planet forms and then life develops.....how does such a thing even occur without intelligence because again you're accepting that inanimate forces of nature somehow develop and form things just because lol, I mean come on Ludo....processes are associated with minds, with intelligence.
I'm not saying this is PGA's argument but I've spoken to you at length about all this. It's called correlation, that is the interpretation of the evidence.
Atheists tend to focus on the steps that occur during a process but refuse to see how the outcome as a whole and what it produces could be associated with a Creator. And I understand coming from somewhat of a rational point of view how you would dismiss it, but on the other hand when something is so blatantly obvious I have to shake my head and wonder what really are you looking at? Have you ever put a fish tank together or constructed any habitation for a pet on your own? the process is very similar...this of course is a very simple analogy or example as we are dealing with things that already exist but I would have you consider that very same idea about God but on a much larger scale.
You have a desire or an idea, you carry out that idea through a process....first you need an environment or area (solar system) where you then can build a habitation/housing (planet)….then within that habitation you must have the appropriate environment according to what creature you wish to house...temperature, water source and heat source, all the appropriate arrangements....then a food source of course (plants, fruits ect ect)...then comes the acclimation process (evolution) and beginning the process of acclimating your pet to the habitation you built. Now you have an environment where sentient and intelligent creatures may flourish....all this took place because you first had an idea and then you implemented that idea. This is the same exact thing with God and creation. It is the very processes you observe that indicate there first is an intelligent source behind those processes AKA God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DynamicSquid
1. I like the freedom of it, you can do whatever you want. It's also cool to see a bunch of lines on a computer create something. I'm also trying out game design with Unreal, and so far I love it!
Sweet.
2. To me, I don't think they can be compatible.
Why? I just said they work with two different natures lol?
I think Science can prove everything, and it can disprove religion/creator.
Science is a neutral study, it has no say whether or not God exists and that's not its purpose. As a matter of fact due to the very nature of God the scientific method can't reach that information. Science studies how things work in our natural universe that's it, if God exists science is still doing that same thing no more no less. It's just a method to examine what we observe in the natural world, you're putting too much emphasis where it don't belong, science contains no information on its own other than what we feed it.
Now obviously science can't definitely prove everything yet, but I think it can and will in the future for sure.
Why are you waiting for science to prove something for you? doesn't that seem like a pipe dream when we have a study like spirituality that's been here all along that is capable and compatible with the nature of the Creator? Basically you are waiting around for it to do something it can never accomplish, even more it is a neutral study meaning the evidence can be interpreted as compatible to Theism as well.
I also think being raised an atheist helped to cement my beliefs.
Don't atheists condemn believers for that very thing? I wouldn't say that's a good thing because again we are back to conditioned thinking.
Created: