Why do we need a God?

@LG --

Irrelevant, answer my question. If science isn't the way then what is?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'd said yes... I don't believe a lot of people have the ability to live by any moral standard motivated solely by their personal intent. Sometimes we need a reason to behave when capital punishment isn't enough.

I think some of us forget that right/wrong isn't always black/white and there are people out there that need guidance, even if it comes from a book. I genuinely believe the idea of god has helped more people than it's harmed and people will continue to believe in god no matter what evidence is presented to them.

It's not necessarily out of denial or stupidity...more like a acknowledgment of one's insignificance.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you not only can't understand precisely why it isn't or even engage in a discussion discussing precisely why it isn't, you simply don't have a hope of understanding the answer.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@LG --

Why won't you answer my question? What is the proper tool to use to understand spiritual/religious claims?

 

already explained why.

You can't understand why empiricism (what you think is the "real" answer to the problem) is incapable of answering it.

I'll say it again just to save you asking the same question twice

You can't understand why empiricism (what you think is the "real" answer to the problem) is incapable of answering it.

:shrug:

 

@LG --

That's not the question I asked. What is the tool we need to use to understand spiritual/religious claims?

 

I explained why there is no point.

You think its a dud question because you are already are convinced you have the right tool and are not interested in even discussing why it is not up for the task.

IOW "I know what I like and I like what I know" renders any pretense of further inquiry a waste of time.

 

Look down below for my answer.

 

Faith does not need scientific evidences/proofs, and that's what makes the faith unique. I don't have a problem with this, no scientist should either, neither should you.
Otherwise, science would like or is like religion in the dark ages-you can believe into anything only what science proves it. The universe would never be fully explained, researched to the point you can say and irrefutably 100% prove and be absolutely sure that there is or there is no God, and this is why people have every right to believe in God, life after death, ghosts, undetectable sub-atomic particles, undetectable forms of matter, undetectable forms of energy and etc..., because there is no way you can prove or disprove (and never will) their claims. Once you prove that truly there is or there is no God after you're able to explain the entire universe (all of its processes) and irrefutable prove it how actually it works and detect all the forces, forms of matter and forms of energy that are present in entire universe, than and only than you can forbid to religious people to believe in God, life after death, ghosts and etc..., but only AFTER all of the phenomenons (both natural/universal, quantum/sub-atomic/primordial and unexplainable that are claimed supernatural or weird at worst) are fully 100% explained and those explanations are irrefutably proven.

 

With what is happening in the world now, one is left to ask such question. For instance, see the way christians are massarced without mercy in parts of the world. In the olden days, this cannot happen, God will interven as he did during the time of Moses, Elijah, Aeron and so many others.
So one realy need to ask that question:

 

@Gravage --

It's also what makes faith no different from the gullibility that get's people ripped off by various flavors of snake-oil salesmen. Is that really a good thing?

 

Actually scientists do that all the time, just check what they say for popular scientific magazines and in many, many interviews, scientists think that their opinions are correct, but scientists also pretty much always say that they BELIEVE that's the way something was created/evolved/happened.
The most educated scientists believe in God's existence as well (and there are many scientists who believe in God's existence)), and yet they are brilliant scientists, this is a matter of choice not education-it's your free choice if you want to be lazy and if you don't want to be educated. And what's the point of science and technology if we live in an extremely stressful job and equally stressful world...
Cheers.

 

@Gravage --

Nope, science works, and we have proof. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding, and in this case the pudding is that the products of science work, consistently. If your computer is plugged in and there are no hardware issues, it will consistently turn on when you flick the switch.

 

The point he was making is that there are many claims made in the name of science that don't have any issues of application beyond theoretical models - kind of like saying the proof is in the pudding that we guess was eaten 3 billion years in the past or future.

Its kind of like "Why do we need explanations made in the name of science that aren't evidenced by working models?"
Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if they were simply used exclusively as theoretical models.

 

@LG --

How about you answer my question. What tool are we supposed to use to understand spiritual/religious claims?

 

Brilliant idea.

First in involves a discussion on why the answer you think already fits the bill is totally unsatisfactory.

Let me know when you are up for it.

 

@LG --

Not an answer to my question. What tool should we use in order to understand spiritual/religious claims?

 

It doesn't appear that you are willing to discuss it at the moment ....

 

@LG --

I'd be more than willing to discuss the tool we're supposed to use, but how am I supposed to discuss something if I don't know what it is.

Again, what tool should we use to understand spiritual/religious claims?