closer to truth, Cosmos. Consciousness. God ep#106 part3
Uploader Comments (gusb232)
Top Comments
-
Stupid blips and bleeps.
Video Responses
All Comments (27)
-
There's an absolutely key difference between religion and science that you're missing here. Science constantly tries to disprove its own hypothesise by making falsifiable predictions and changing with the evidence. Religion tries to confirm its hypothesis by making rationalisations of things that are already true, immunising itself from disproof. If it acted more like science we might get somewhere!
-
if there was a knock down argument on both sides there wont be any debate over this matter. it would have been solved
-
@heloWelo u are right,and all people that have spoken of god has done so by experience...a good exemple of this is....wen meditating a special technic...the person meditating discovers that energy comes to him wen he needs it..in some difficult postures pain arises,if you persevire energy comes and heals the pain.you actualy feel the chi come and heal you.....this phenomenon is a powerfull revelation that nature or god is always there to heal you...this essence truly feels limiteless & more.
-
This trucker amused himself by running over Christians walking on the roadside. He would swerve to hit them, enjoying the loud "THUD". One day he picked up a hitchhiker. Suddenly the trucker saw a Christian and instinctively swerved to hit him. But then he remembered the hitchhiker & swerved back away, narrowly missing the Christian. But he still heard a "THUD". He turned to the hitchhiker and said, "Sorry, I almost hit that Xtian" The hitchhiker replied "That's OK, I got him with the door!"
What's wrong with Mystery? If one posits that God exists and has reason enough to do so, the logical thing to do would be to explore the possibilities - the mystery. Afterall, if we have a scientific "mystery", we investigate. The same logic applies to our investigation for God. It would be unscientific to rule out a priori the possibility God.
heloWelo 1 year ago 3
@heloWelo 'What's wrong with Mystery? ...It would be unscientific to rule out a priori the possibility God.'
I think what we do in face of mystery is what can be wrong. It would be an argument from ignorance to point to the unknown and say god can or does exist there. I dont think we can rule out all gods or any number of things that may lay beyond our understanding. But so what Science does not say things like we dont know the shape of the universe so we'll say its a cube.
gusb232 1 year ago
@gusb232 - "what we do in face of mystery is what can be wrong" - I agree.
However, science does loosely say things like "let's call it a cube" in order to test a hypothesis. Particularly when it comes to exploring the Cosmos. We then continue to follow the data wherever that may lead. If logic and observation suggests the possibility of God, further investigation is justified and rational.
heloWelo 1 year ago
@heloWelo '"let's call it a cube" in order to test a hypothesis'
A hypothesis is very far saying somthing is a certainty as many religions proclaim god is.
'If logic and observation suggests the possibility of God'
Yes 'IF' but I dont think there there is good evidence to suggest a god exists, But I dont say this fact rules out the possiblity of a god. It simply does give us reason to support the claim that one does exist. much like a cosmic teapot.
gusb232 1 year ago
@gusb232 - I'm not sure that's added much to the discussion. A hypothesis is a conjecture and not (if I read your meaning correctly) in any way established.
As for a "cosmic teapot", I put this in the same realms as panspermia and the like. Although, in multiverse theory, this in an acceptable hypothesis and following that line of thought ends in absurdity and is irractional.
Rather, the evidence for the existence of God is far more convincing and in a different league, for the rational person
heloWelo 1 year ago
@heloWelo 'evidence for the existence of God is far more convincing and in a different league, for the rational person'
Well this is now a very different line of argument.
Before you were saying gods existance was still a mystery and since it was possible we cant rule it out so we can believe. In this case god is like the teapot.
If you have convinceding evidence, thats a different story.
I for one am not convinced that a god does, eventhough at one time i tried to keep my faith; i couldnt.
gusb232 1 year ago