There is absolutely no way to scientifically prove the existence of God, or to disprove it for that matter. Yet there are scientists (insert your 0-100% estimate here) who are firmly grounded in a belief in God.

If the Bible can be accepted as the base source for obtaining information on the mind, will and reasoning of God, then the answer to acceptance should lie somewhere in the pages and words contained in those writings.

So, what does scripture say? It says acceptance of God is based on Faith (belief in things not seen) by the believer. If a person has faith in God and seeks God out, they will most likely find God. After faith, comes experience, I see all of this as developing a hypothesis and then challenging it.

A Hypothesis = Faith can bring on a relationship with God - How do I challenge that? Can I find proof, acceptable to me, that that is true? The proof need not be acceptable to you, since the results of your level of faith have no bearing on my relationship with God.

There are scientific terms that believers (people of faith) often use to describe the results of their faith based relationship with their Deity. For the believer, terms of science like observation, cause and effect, challenging a hypothesis and measuring results have their faith based counterparts - answered prayer, seeing God at work in the life of the believer, is God's will best for my life?, How has my life changed since I began seeking out God?

The scientist publishes or perishes. The believer witnesses with the hope that others will not perish.

Occupationally, I am a scientist. Can I scientifically prove the existence of God? No I can't and have no desire to try. Since God does not require that from me, it seems a waste of my time to attempt to do that. Do I see - have I observed evidence of God? Yes I have and continue to see it daily.

Does that make me less of a scientist? Maybe and maybe not.

What do you mean by "God"?

But if you are a rationalist and still believe in god, in an albiet abstract form (no miracles for you, right?) then how do you divine (sorry, pun) which god or gods are valid and which are not?

Is the belief in one particular higher entity over the others one of those things where you have to completely abandon your rationality and just go with your unscientific gut feeling? Or is it more a belief of convience - you know, grab the god that makes you most socially acceptable?

Aren't you conflating two "faiths"?

Faith in "God"....and faith in a book?

“If the Bible can be accepted as the base source for obtaining information on the mind, will and reasoning of God, then the answer to acceptance should lie somewhere in the pages and words contained in those writings.”

>>An important caveat is that there’s no real reason to presume the bible represents such a base source (i.e., as more likely to be an accurate depiction of god’s identity, will and relationship to man than any competing oral or scriptural religious traditions.)

“So, what does scripture say? It says acceptance of God is based on Faith (belief in things not seen) by the believer. If a person has faith in God and seeks God out, they will most likely find God. After faith, comes experience, I see all of this as developing a hypothesis and then challenging it.”

>>Individuals who have faith in god and seeks god out have found tens if not hundreds of gods over the years. Clearly having faith in god, seeking god out, even finding god does speak to whether or not what one’s found is real or imagined.

“There are scientific terms that believers (people of faith) often use to describe the results of their faith based relationship with their Deity. For the believer, terms of science like observation, cause and effect, challenging a hypothesis and measuring results have their faith based counterparts - answered prayer, seeing God at work in the life of the believer, is God's will best for my life?, How has my life changed since I began seeking out God?”

>>How are you controlling for a placebo effect—i.e., how will you demonstrate that faith of itself, such as in a god that doesn’t actually exist, cannot result in the perception of answered prayers, god at work in the life of the believer, one’s life changing since seeking out that non-existent god, etc.?

“Do I see - have I observed evidence of God? Yes I have and continue to see it daily.”

>>Others see evidence of gods other than the god of Abraham on a daily basis. Many see evidence of the non-existence of god on a daily basis. How is the evidence you observe more compelling than the evidence they observe?

For some reason, the fallacy of omniscience always seems to get attributed to scientists, as though they either do know everything or can, via the tools at their disposal, know everything with a bit of effort. I've often wondered where that comes from, since, as a scientist myself, I wouldn't dare to make the claim (except when doing tech support, in which case, one must make the claim that "I *know* what I'm doing, so trust me" even though that's often complete rubbish).

Science is no more than the art of observation, elevated to a status far beyond most arts due to the technology that has been developed through careful application. Still, that observation comes from imperfect people, through limited senses, with limited tools, and an unknown, but assumed to be non-ideal location. To imply that we know all there is to know given these axioms is a gross error.

Back in the day, applied science wasn't regarded much differently than magic. Today's magic is applied science, for the most part, with a bit of showmanship (as an avid reader of Terry Pratchett, I here invoke the term "Boffo" to the amusement of other Pratchett fans). And magic, by definition, is very similar to miracles: they are events that happen contrary to what our understanding would have us expect. This happens in the lab much more often than not. We simply don't call them "magic" or "miracles" (often "failures"--what does that teach us about our expectations?)

Which is all a long-winded way of saying that science doesn't preclude miracles. Rather, science tries to understand them and recreate them. To that end, there is much to learn and do.

As a scientist, I find it quite possible to believe in a being or race of beings significantly advanced to have learned to wield powers that we aren't even aware of yet. And, if they have even half as much curiosity as we do, I don't see why they wouldn't be interested in the affairs of men, especially if they see us as a more primitive them. We give a lot of grief to religious devotees of Hubbard, but some of these sci-fi writers may someday be proven to be correct in their ideas of where we'll be in a few thousand years of exponential growth in knowledge. Until then, all we can do is keep an open mind and open senses and practice science.

I think the problem with your question is that, for the devotee, the object of devotion and religious practices necessarily "make sense." It's subjective. An outsider may look upon it as utter foolishness, but that doesn't mean that it is--it's only an opinion, based on the outsider's sense of rational. Again, it's only subjective.

Those that have studied (and those who have had diarrhea) know that the gut has quite a few senses that ought not to be ignored. Thus, the origin of the term "gut feeling."

Finally, as to one's choice in beliefs, I suppose that depends on one's motivations. If you seek social acceptance, your god is popularity, and anything required to acheive that could be seen as a religious practice. (I'm speaking in broad terms here.) The better question is "what do you desire?" From what I've seen, most religions seem to cater to the crowd that desires justification and absolution for moral failings. Others perhaps give people a reason to "carry on" with life. Still others offer understanding into the universe, the soul, or other abstract ideas. For me, I prefer the religion that teaches truth, since, especially around campaign season, there seems to be such a dearth of it.

Belief in 2 aspects or facets of one God, still equals one faith.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. -John 1:1

Let's say for the sake of argument that I am one of the world's foremost experts on child psychiatry. I have discovered a methodology that successfully treats adolescent victims of Alcohol Fetal Syndrome. I decide to publish a text that comprehensively outlines and details the protocol of this discovered methodology...however, I am scheduled solid for the next 18 months attending speaking engagements and psychiatric symposiums.

Since I want the text published as quickly as possible, I commission a writer friend and send her nearly 200 hours of dictated dialogue that she will transcribe into the edited text.

That text, though not technically authored by my own hand, is the transcription of my thoughtss, hypotheses, tests, results and conclusions. My expert testimony is transcribed into writing by the hand of one who is NOT me. Ghost writers are responsible for much of the texts we attribute to the hand of the purported authors. Ghost writers, in and of themselves, are not capable of originating the material they transcribe. They are but a tool commissioned by the master to convey his message...his word. So if a reader believes the content of that text to be true, is the reader placing faith in the book, or the AUTHOR of the material?

What I find mysterious about the Bible, is that it's Author purports His Word to be a living thing that stands apart from ink on paper. It is the expressed Word of God by the hand of fallible men who are simply led of God. Each as imperfect as any other being on the planet regardless of piety. Yet for the brief duration of time that their pen transcribed the message, they were inspired to perfectly perform their task. No differently than a vocal virtuoso who flawlessly executes a particularly complex passage of a cantata, but who still has feet of clay.

Have a good week, Rep!

moG

I think you're being a little bit generous.

If you look at e.g. the legend of the Septuagint, mortal man has nothing to do with it. It's all directed by God. The traditional approach is that God can cause people to do whatever He wants.

These days, we poke holes in this characterization. But back then, the idea that the Septuagint was wrong in any respect was an excuse for a pogrom.

There's no bringing rationality or logic into this discussion. Religion is above all an emotional matter. As such, arguments can be found to counter any logical objection. That they aren't convincing to the infidel is hardly the point.

On what basis do you define faith as the "belief in things not seen?" That is not how I read Corinthians at all. Of course I am a heathen so maybe my opinion doesn't count for much, but I think your definition misses the mark.

"In the beginning was the Word" does NOT at all refer to the written word. It was the SPOKEN word. These two are almost entirely different from eachother once you get as far as the Greek alphabet (they are more similar if your alphabets lack vowels).

"The letter kills, but the spirit gives life."

These two are often in conflict. There is an old Quaker hymn which suggests that the resolution is to simply choose the spirit: With a book and a steeple and a bell and a key
They would bind it forever, but they can't said he
For the book it will perish, and the steeple will fall,
But the Light will be shining at the end of it all.

I would suggest that you might find Walter Ong's book "Orality and Literacy" quite interesting.

Half of Christians probably think the Word in John 1:1 was the PRINTED word without realizing how different the printed, hand-written, and spoken word really are.

Interestingly, religion makes a whole lot more sense when approached through the question of psychodynamics of orality.

His expression (like in my example) is both written (the text) and spoken (the 200 hours of spoken records transcribed into text). But one author nevertheless.

I say the letter that kills is not the Word, but the 10 commandments, or the 613 points (letter of law) that the 10 commandments were subdivided into. The law serves to condemn us because it exposes man's shortcomings. The Spirit—the Holy Spirit—gives life because it's only by God's hand of grace that ANY of us come to that saving knowledge that only HE is able to render us holy. Some take the "Spirit" to mean essence or gist of that intent...I don't have too big a problem with that idea either, since grace still appears to be the main agenda.

Glad I could supply a laugh or two. : )

Wouldn't that also suggest that worrying too much about the letter of the Bible would also kill (New Testiment too), if you don't look to its living spirit?

One of the issues you see is that both Christ and Paul seem to be of two minds about the role of Leviticus in Christianity. In particular Paul is willing to suggest that Christ, not the Law is the road to salvation, while at the same time arguing that homosexuality is wrong by appealing to the authority of Leviticus (and coining words based on Greek translations of that work).

So the caution seems to extend even to those people (such as Paul) who authored writings later considered to be inspired.

I don't think Jesus and Paul were of two minds in regards to the law. They both stressed the idea that perfectly loving God and others, via agape...satisfies all the law and the prophets.

If Paul authored the book of Hebrews, it appears that he was certain that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. IOW, if the Word (who became flesh—aka Jesus) inspired the Levitical standards for sexual purity, Paul wasn't actually appealing to the authority of Leviticus, as much as he appealed to the authority of Christ's atonement that makes the homosexual right with God irrespective of his or her ability to attain to the law and not indulge sexual impurity.

Paul was a Greek as well as a strict Pharisaical Jew. He spent the early part of his life vigorously propping up the Jewish Law as the key to salvation. Not until his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus was Paul struck blind...that he would soon SEE! The Levitical law didn't pass away by any means. It remained as a hallmark to reveal man's sin. The standard for right and wrong didn't change. Only the method of satisfying the law or the penalty for failing it.

We all fall short of perfection and the glory of God. Homosexuality is still wrong simply by virtue of the biblical standards governing fornication. Now, if fornication is simply any sexual relations outside the bounds of marriage...and marriage (as it is biblically described) is the matrimonial bond entered into by a man and a woman, homosexuality is still fornication regardless of gender issues. There are so many things we do without a passing thought that are just as "wrong" or more important to God than homosexuality. For instance, the Bible says that God hates a liar (Proverbs 6). Who hasn't lied? The church demonizes homosexuality because it is conveniently a "sin" that isn't half as common as others. Funny how though God clearly despises wicked scheming, haughtiness, and lying more than homosexuality, the church doesn't seem to be waging any campaigns against liars, the haughty or the wicked schemers.

Man's comparative hierarchy of sin doesn't seem to take humility into consideration. Mercy is extended to us who owe much, only to turn quickly and grab the arm of one who owes us little. Hypocrisy.

Sorry, went a little off the path.