Atheists and proof cont….

[Kdtym10]

A carry on from the previous thread

Spiritual faith is just what’s in your imagination. Doesn’t mean it’s true.

But, the very nature of the scientific method would mean that it can never provide absolutes. All it can ever say is no such thing has ever been observed.

So applying that view to the divine, all it can ever say is the experiments carried out have not observed the divine.

if it cannot say @heyhohellos cancer has been cured then it cannot say there is no divine. Surely they are the same points of you only look at the world through a scientific lens.

The imagination has come up a lot. I 100% agree it’s in my imagination- but that really doesn’t mean it’s not true.

Maybe we need to open up the conversation and discuss the imagination. How does science define and explain the imagination? Where does it come from?

As someone who recently went back to church life (albeit a different style to what I grew up with due to trauma) because my DS wanted to attend and started helping out with Sunday school, I've seen church with a different lense.
I studied the Alpha course and even got Baptised thinking it was the right decision. It felt right at the time. The more I read scripture the more I picked up on dated language and clichés. The more I found a jealous God, who was supposed to be all knowing and loving, but it came with strings and conditions. I can't get on board with this any longer. I've been told I'm reading it wrong. It's more about feeling and believing than proof and seeing.
Then I've done safeguarding training being around the children in Sunday school and have come across something called blemish diclosures. I'm told even those with historical sexual abuse against children have a right to be in church and we have to be forgiving (because that's what God would do) yet we are not allowed to know who these individuals are to keep our young people safe. The safeguarding team do and procedures are in place. Yet they aren't present in Sunday school and anyone can come in.
We are told to give generously to church despite the cost of living crisis and that God will provide. Our religion is a "loving and accepting one" but only if you act and behave in a certain way.
We also know FGM is occurring in our congregation yet we cannot bring it up due to cultural differences.
Safe guarding my arse.

I think you make some valid points against certain types of churches.

if it cannot say @heyhohellos cancer has been cured then it cannot say there is no divine.

Yes!

However, nobody has claimed that there IS no divine. People are saying that there is NO EVIDENCE of the divine.

Lack of evidence for anything, provided there’s no other good explanation for that lack of evidence, is evidence for its absence. It’s a basic principle of reasoning, it works nearly all the time, and we all use it several times a day. Every time you look to see that there are no cars coming before you cross the road, you are reasoning from absence of evidence to absence.

Lack of evidence for anything, provided there’s no other good explanation for that lack of evidence, is evidence for its absence.

In the case of cancer, there IS a good other explanation - namely that the cancer cells are too small and hidden for current scans to see.

In the case of God, there is NO other good explanation.

Does that make sense @Kdtym10 ?

On the contrary - there have been many people on this thread (and others) who have said there is no God. How have they concluded this absolutely?

If you cross the road and don’t see anything physically present where you are looking for something physically present, using your physical senses to detect something which we would all agree can be observed using physical senses it is reasonable to conclude that it is not physically present.

Where you are using your physical senses to detect something which is not detectable by your physical senses it is not reasonable to assume it is not present.

But there are plenty of other good explanations- so no it doesn’t make sense

If there is a god - where is he? I’m in my early 50’s and haven’t seen him, neither has anyone in our wider family.

@Parker231

If there is a god - where is he? I’m in my early 50’s and haven’t seen him, neither has anyone in our wider family.

There's God in me!😉 The part of me that is unity with God and does His will is one place you can find God.🥳 There are lots of other places you can find God too.

That’s an interesting point. If there is a God, even if people were to agree with the definition of a god who doesn’t understand human emotions and therefore doesn’t care, what is the point of them is they allow people to not believe in them?

But I’m getting dangerously close to Preacher, if anyone has watched that.

That’s an interesting point. If there is a God, even if people were to agree with the definition of a god who doesn’t understand human emotions and therefore doesn’t care, what is the point of them is they allow people to not believe in them?

@TheHorneSection , you don't agree with free will? You think God should force people's relationship with Him? Force unity with Him? Can that be true unity? Can unity even be forced?

I've always seen religion as a personal need, maybe even a flaw in the human psyche. Born out of not knowing how things in the world happen, religion or belief filled a void. For many people that void has shrunk to nothingness, for others it is still needed for them to make sense of their own existence. As long as neither way is compulsory, and believers and non believers are tolerant of each others belief and none, it's ok. When one version seeks to impose its doctrine (a human failing) on others, then we have problems.

I think most perspectives are there to fill a need. A belief that scientific methodology can answer everything, to me is a control issue, not wanting to rely on person as l experience, a lack of belief in self, not believing others personal experience would perhaps indicate a lack of trust.

This is why we must be open to viewing life’s from as many different angles as possible, none will give the full picture, it’s important to recognise when it’s best you use which lens.

Flippin' 'eck, Heyho. Your replies usually have a kind of internal logic, but this is coleslaw!

Plenty of statistical outliers in this world - That's the point of statistics; they allow us to see if there are patterns and, if there are, what might be normal and how much variance there is from normal. Multiple outliers warrant further investigation, and are likely to invalidate the study.

I think of science as being what most usually is observed - Most usually? You're kidding! Scientists observe for decades or more, looking for subtle changes that may indicate new evidence.

There are environmental factors and priors that might potentially affect what has been observed that are unknown - This is how science works. It's a feature, not a bug. Found new evidence? Hmm, where did that come from? Let's look deeper!

There are exceptions to a statistical norm - You're mistaking a norm for a law. The norm is a midpoint of a range, meaning no single value represents the whole sample. Scientific 'laws' are always true, no exceptions.

And Rupert Sheldrake?! "Critics express concern that popular attention paid to Sheldrake's books and public appearances undermines the public's understanding of science." Well, he seems to have undermined yours.

I don’t think I agree with free will as a concept that someone who is religious might believe. The idea of being allowed “free will” suggests there is another alternative, or that it is something that has been “given” or “allowed” to me, which, in itself, involves a belief of some sort of divine creator.

Humans are conscious beings who make decisions and choices because of the way their brains have evolved, not because of the concept of free will.

@Garlicking ah, the critics do seem to hate Sheldrake! 😁His son Merlin is a highly rated biologist too. They both have done some fascinating work. I suggest you might find it interesting.

“Scientific 'laws' are always true, no exceptions.”

In this case there can be no scientific laws. It is impossible to state something is always true. It is only ever possible to state that no other result has been observed as far as the researchers are aware. Sometimes it might say within certain conditions a result is more likely than not. But science can never provide unquestionable truths only reasonable assumptions that what has been observed in a study can be extrapolated and applied to a broader field.

you don't agree with free will?

@heyhohello I think it would be helpful to define 'free will'.

All animals, including the human species, respond to external stimuli in their environments, and our brains allow us to assimilate information about our environment and model it mentally in sophisticated ways. This in turn allows us to respond to our environment.

I'm not sure what the concept of 'free will' adds actually.

In this case there can be no scientific laws. It is impossible to state something is always true. It is only ever possible to state that no other result has been observed as far as the researchers are aware

Sure, but so many facts are considered facts because 'no other results have ever been observed':

Day follows night (the earth rotates)

All living organisms die

Objects fall to the ground due to gravity

Etc

Day follows night (the earth rotates) The day (or night) this law proves its exception, we won't be faffing about on Mumsnet 😂

There are huge threads on Reddit about the statement "water is wet". They mostly end up disputing the definition of "wet" and whether hydrophobic substances disprove water's wetness. I'm sure someone here could argue that wetting is a subjective experience, therefore nobody can truthfully say water's always wet, therefore nothing means anything unless God said it (or something).

Just idly reading the thread and my jaw dropped at this! I'm sorry but this church is appalling. I hope no adults are left unsupervised with children at the very least, if they're not DBS checked? And FGM is a mandatory reporting situation, you are legally required to go directly to police if you suspect this.

Day follows night (the earth rotates) -well this one is just a self fulfilling categorisation - does night and day actually exist?

All living organisms die - Do they or do they live forever but she’s their skin

Objects fall to the ground due to gravity - but what if they’re caught? They have not fallen to the ground.

I assumed this church wasn’t in the UK otherwise I can’t believe the poster hadn’t contacted the police about any of this.