Science and religion

I don't expect so, but is anyone aware of any reasoning, logic or science about God or God's purpose? Actually, is there anything in religion (preferably Christianity) about God's purpose or purpose for humans?
Not too complicated please. I am a simple guy.

I agree there is no scientific or factual evidence that can explain god or his purose for humanity. If people think that religion is logical than humanity needs help. The only reasoning towards religion is the fact that people resort to it because they fear death.

Gads. It's hard to believe this post still has any life.
It's also hard to believe how little curiosity there is here.
I sort of blew this off because originally the answers came from people using classical philosophical patterns of enquiry. Certainly very respectable, but I was looking for curiosity and ingenuity.
Now the answers look like they are coming from a polite crowd on the Richard Dawkins web site using ideological atheism instead of even philosophy. It bores me to tears.
As I said in the first place, science and reason strongly suggest God's existence. No faith needed for knowledge. As a matter of fact, examination of the topic shows how divorsed faith must be from knowledge.
I hate to tell you, but you haven't figured it out...or even tried to which is understandable considering all the time and work it took me. I do hope to get it published though and you will then be welcome to tell me if you can find any flaws of fact or reason in it. No one has yet and many know of it.
Enjoy, Scattered

Get out of town! Science and reason have nothing to say about God,

but as we have been able to climb higher and see further there was no more of reaching heaven with a ladder, a tower, a beanstalk, or a tall tree.

Ignorance is a million questions for a child, and few of them may contribute to actual survival.

So what if you tell a kid that the world was created in seven days? Is the scientific reality less amazing?

You need to know. Here is the answer. Now get your chores done before the winter blows ice chrystals up yer bung hole. Let science tell you the truth later.

I am going to get back to your post. For now, technology has only grown but slowly, so for a very long time the only technology was to get after it with what you know. And I will tell you the truth here, and I am not saying it because I have read few books but many. If you read ten books on various subjects it is possible that you have the breadth of a hundred books. I was told something in regard to Jesus once, but it might do as well for Socrates. It is that if you take twelve people into a room with you together you can reconstruct the whole of human knowledge. Maybe Jesus had never heard of a Greek philosopher, but it was unlikely that all that had went on in the world escaped them all together. So, if you read a few books on various subjects and they are not too old, it is possible to have a grasp of all current ideas and get some glimpses at many past ideas that resurface, or are taken out of the box as straw men. Think of how well accepted a book might be if it went cont rary to what everyone knows. If you are betting on ignorance the odds are better than fifty fifty. If you are trying to sell books or ideas you are betting that the person who picks your book up, will recognize it as a contradiction, or addition to accepted knowledge. In either case, it must appeal to more knowledge than it professes to know. I am tired right now, I don't know if I could make the point better if not. If you read books you can get a better idea what accepted knowledge is, and if you read many books you can get a good enough idea of knowledge to say something bold about technology, and knowledge with confidence.

Sorry, but I've read way too many books. I also have to disagree with you. Even without getting into the technical information, I am sure it would take more than 10 books to cover the categories of human knowledge. Each book by Shakespere covered individual unique archetypes and there are far more archetypes than those. In that I have to handle a great deal of knowledge about humans, I collect archetypes to use for catagorizing what knowlegdge I run across.
Tell ya what, I could follow that, but how about I just tell you one relevant category of knowledge you cannot find in any book. As I have said, religion is not my main study, but I stumbled on that stuff about God. I have also come upon a number of other fields of thought that have not been explored.
Think of this. Day by day, the scientists find some new feature of humans largely controlled by genes, whether it is longevity, a disease or even political biases now. That knowledge can barely be used though, because current genetic theory leads to Social Darwinism... which by the way led to WWII. The study of Heredity is the Third Forbidden Subject in science and you will be driven from academia and polite society if you study it. You say, that is impossible. How could it possibly be done? Ask James Watson. They call you a racist. It works. The genetic knowledge we develop cannot be used until a new moral context is developed with a different result than that of Social Darwinism that does not include racism (quite the contrary). I did that. I found an alternative to Social Darwinism that fits within the original theory of evolution. Note that you can not reference any book that claims to more than very superficially examine the moral context of current and developing genetic knowledge. The ones that do are based on current bioethics which in turn are based on nothing more than trying to be decent and deal with existing problems such as in womb male selection. My moral theory is a proactive view based on a comprehensive examination of the problem and potentials. ... No wishful thinking involved.
I've already said where I put this all. How about 10 books covering ideas that no one has ever explored before?
Enjoy

You are wrong again.. Shakespeare did not creat new characters because his drama was formal, and his characters to an extent real in history, and the two types of tragic antihero, if we exclude immortals like Promeathius, or Achilles, are Orestes who did what he did knowing what he did, and then tried to avoid the consequences, and Oedipus who did what he did not knowing what he did and accepted the consequences. No book can be written that does not reflect in one way or another what is the common current of thought, and knowledge in a society.

I have read a lot of books, but in doing so have not encountered a lot of new ideas, but rather new authors with different attitudes. Let me give you an example. If you look at the philosophy of the three major western religions, each reaches a point in defense of force.

Essentially it is that: If the intelligent do not control the strong, the strong will control the intelligent. This is really a veiled argument for meritocracy, and for social conservatism, but the intelligent in controlling the strong also weakens the whole of society,

so even if they made a reasonable argument separated in time by hundreds of years in some cases, it was not the right argument, but one founded on self interest rather than social interest.

It is an old idea common to old societies that they will last forever because no one in the form of society has a sense of time outside of the form. Which is part of the function of forms, to warp time, and conserve a certain state of affairs. But the world changes outside, and no society can think itself safe only by controlling their own circumstances to their benefit within. What is good for the few is never good for the many.

If I may... Moral theories are garbage. People are moral, and societies are moral, or both are not. Yet we all live in moral worlds. It is moral senses that control all our actions.
If you do not realize that a person's moral sense is formed before he or she can reason about morals, and that they are for all purposes of discussion, -the person-, then you will never see how futile all moral theories are.

If you want to change morals change men, and start with yourself because when you find how difficult that is you will grasp how impossible it is appealing to reason in order to change others. You can appeal to morals through emotion, because moral behavior can only be rationalized because it is not rational.

I didn't say they were new, I said each had a different archetype. If you think there are only one or two or ten archetypes to human existense, I have to disagree. There are many more.


Huh? Where does Christianity defend force?

Says who?

No logic there.

Meaningless platitudes.

So we are all instinct in your view. I see it as a combination. If we are all instinct, then I wonder why we work to learn anything. You may not learn from experience, but I think most people do.

Partly true. Morality has an instinctual basis, but part of that instinct in humans is to use learned moral strategies. So while you do have to communicate morality emotionally, a superior morality is also based on reason (or something else that makes it functional in reality). My idea was to create a survival strategy, a morality, with reason and then make it into a form that it appeals both to reason and emotion, that is the person's survival instinct, the irrational part. If you offer truth to the head and the heart, a person will embrace it as truth.
As for changing man, that is just another one of those "books" I wrote. We need to adapt behaviorally and genetically. Oh I wrote all about that, but the morality of it, the how and why, has to come first. That is why I mentioned the morality of genetic technologies first. It's a good starting point.

Well, this doesn't seem to be philosophy or curiosity, so once again, I must bow out.
Enjoy, Scattered

I agree there is no scientific or factual evidence that can explain god or his purose for humanity. If people think that religion is logical than humanity needs help. The only reasoning towards religion is the fact that people resort to it because they fear death.

What has divided Science and Religion, is the matter of "Concsiousness"

(Some)Religion's, have claimed there was a "Concsiousness" that was involed in the creation of everything.

(Some)Scientist's, have claimed there was not a "Concsiousness" that was involed in the creation of everything.

So it come's back to the question, was there a concsious inteligence that played a role in the creation of the existence.

Yet there is such factual evidence that there is and was inteligence and intelectual thought in the creation of how are existence function's, due to the fact that it take's inteligence and intelect for humanity to understand how the existence function's.

Yet, scientists know that a thing can be inteligent without being aware or conscious of it's surrounding's,

yet for a thing to be able to use intelectual thought, such a thing must be conscious and aware of it's surrounding's.

For if it take's conscious intelectual thought to understand the complexness of are existence, would it not take conscious intelectual thought to create such a complexness.

Here are some question's...

How can nature program it's self?--->(what programed hydrogen and oxygen to do what they do, aka function how they function)
What programed nature to program it's self?--> (what programed the program?)
Would such an act take inteligence?
Would such an act take intelecual knowlage?
How could such an act not take inteligence?
How could such an act not take intelecual knowlage?
Was nature concsious of such?

So, it seem's like there is factual evidence that point's the fact that there has to been a conscious intelectual involment in the creation of the rule's of are existence that dictate's how all thing's function with one another.

Yet, there is no evidence that there is still a conscious intelectual and inteligent involment at are present time.

So those both group's lack mass amount of information...

So, a scientist should not call another wrong, due to the fact that he cant prove him self right since he/her lack's the power/information to do so, and religion's should not call another wrong, due to the fact that he/she cant prove his/her self right, due to the same reason as the scientist.

Sadly, I, a third party, that dosnt support the action's or thought's of both side's, has gaven the only proof that can logicaly leed to the conclution that there had to been a conscious inteligence in the creation of the rule's of are existence that dictate's how everything act's, and function's with one another in the up-most complexness that it is.

YET, this evidence dosnt mean that there still is a conscious inteligence :rolleyes:pulling everyone's string's...

No0ne

I hereby award you with this blue apostrophe shaped medal.

'
You've earned it!