[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

I don't want messages filled with hate or Zeal or ignorance.

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

Perhaps we should stop believing so much then, and start KNOWING.

...

Instead you should KNOW yourself. Know the very way your molecules vibrate and move. Know how the wind blows and how the clouds move. Listen to the sound of a tree and feel everything as one. Then you will know that what you might call God, is nothing but self realization.

Sounds a lot like zeal to me

Before I make any assumptions about what you're saying, do you believe it's wrong to reference someone else's words if they say what I want to say? Or that's it's wrong to look to others for answers we haven't been able to find within ourselves, or for answers that we might find but only after years of introspection instead of hours of looking elsewhere?

Originally Posted by Sunnybayes

But that's just what science is. "God" is just a label or an analogy. People have to agree on the definition. I guess I'm trying to label/define God in my own way to describe several different phenomena, and come up with my own analogies. But they're just making the best guess that they can given all the evidence and every time someone comes up with an objection then they have to redefine what God really means to incorporate those exceptions, just like any physical model. I just like their effort and their guesses that they've tried to muster out so far.

Perhaps, but unlike spirituality, science, after coming up with a hypothesis, gathers data to attempt to invalidate it. Before being backed up by verifiable data the hypothesis is not considered an accurate representation of reality. It remains a guess, not a proposition.

Originally Posted by Sunnybayes

Here's the analogy that I'm going for. The concept of God and the rules to follow him is analogous to a cell following its instructions of its DNA.... something along those lines, and that the God DNA is what tells humans how to form societies and relationships, like DNA tells cells how to work together "synergetically" to form a body. Edit: I guess you'd say that our DNA is just information and instructions for cells to work together, like laws of government and god are rules for us to work together to make a society.

And this is one of my fundamental disagreements with spirituality. In terms of rules governing life, God is unnecessary. Social interaction developed and evolved (and spurred our genetic evolution) in ways that don't require a supernatural entity for explanation.

Originally Posted by Sunnybayes

And I also argue, that if you translate the word God correctly into your own language that you can relate to then there is some good advice.

I agree that there is good advice to be found in spirituality/religion, but I also firmly believe that spirituality/religion is not necessary to learn/understand that same advice. Compassion, generosity, empathy, etc., none of that requires God.

Originally Posted by Sunnybayes

I also think that the word faith boils down to the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. Its impossible to be 100% sure so faith is required eventually.

Hmmm, faith conjures up thoughts of belief in God, or certainty of divine purpose. How does that relate to the inability to accurately measure both a waveparticle's position and momentum? Unless you mean faith in respect to our certainty in the way that waveparticle will behave regardless of measurement inaccuracies.

Originally Posted by Sunnybayes

So basically he/they redefine God when new evidence from physics comes up, so I'd suspect God will always be defined one step above of what we know.

I see futility in ascribing to God things we don't know because we're continually shrinking God's domain. Project this far enough and what is left for God?

Originally Posted by Sunnybayes

And then there's the God that cannot be labeled or defined, basically like how mathematicians like to call 1/0 as undefined.

Who else has a different definition?

Since God is frequently used to explain the things we don't understand, He is undefined. Something undefined does not exist. So by that definition there is no argument for the existence of such a god.

Originally Posted by ZHereford

As Carezza7 says there's no way to prove or disprove the points any of us make. To me it's logical, reasonable and probable that there is a supreme intelligence whose thread runs throughout all of creation. Evolution included.

I could support my opinion with much documentation but it doesn't matter because it's still not provable. And that's okay. The one great freedom we all do have is to believe what we choose.

True. And I'm sure your beliefs are as solid as mine, so they'll be able to withstand scrutiny, right? I ask you to share your beliefs, and specifically your reasons for holding those beliefs, because of the possibility that they may shed some light on hidden discrepancies in my own.

Ultimately, as Sunnybayes asked, if the existence of a supreme being is equally likely and unlikely, what leads you to believe in rather than against?

Originally Posted by Sunnybayes

Now the question is, if anyone can shed some light, was leads us to choose to believe or disbelief? What things affects this choice?

I don't believe in God (of any kind) because everything I've experienced is either explainable through mundane mechanisms, or is unexplained. It's those unexplained things which are sometimes ascribed to God, but which I sometimes later see, either through experience or new knowledge, as also having mundane explanations.

That's why I'm not a believer, because of the lack of personal experiences in favour of belief, and ever-increasing knowledge which provides explanations for things previously ascribed to spiritual causes.

I suspect some people believe because of the comfort that belief provides in the face of things unknown. I think that some people have a tendency to replace the unknown with imaginary scary things, so to avoid that they readily adopt beliefs which replace the unknown with positive things. (I wrote a little about this in this blog entry) But for me the unknown is itself positive; it's a source of endless joyful discovery, discovery which I feel would be limited by explanations which can't be verified.

On a slightly different note, I do believe that spirituality, specifically the language of spirituality, is useful for communicating experiences of the world, rather than for trying to understand and explain the world.

Maybe this is what you were getting at before Sunnybayes. Except rather than governing, spiritually can be an aid in social interaction. I don't believe that God (or any focus of spiritual beliefs) governs our social interactions, but I do agree that spiritual practices can help guide them, and that spiritual language can be used to more effectively communicate experiences (as long as everyone involved understands the language).

I had a discussion with Jenny about this and she summarised it very well.