(October 4, 2009 at 2:04 am)Arcanus Wrote: And while that sounds intellectually appealing, I strongly doubt it is the case. I am very, very confident that if we look at the data you reviewed and the manner in which you assessed it, we will find that either the data wasn't scientific or the assessment wasn't (assuming, of course, that we both mean the same thing by "scientific") because science investigates the natural world only. It cannot draw any conclusions about reality in itself. Of course, you might be tempted to say that the physical cosmos is the extent of reality, that this universe and everything in it is all that exists, but that would be a metaphysical claim, not a scientific conclusion.
To be more accurate, it is the lack of scientific evidence that is my final reason not to believe. I don't claim to fully know the nature of the universe but believe that there is not any sufficient reason to think there is anything besides the natural world; even my idea of a "soul" doesn't posit a thing that is separate from the body, but rather something connected to it by a silver cord made from the same substance that the soul is made from. I've decided that science has the best answers, and anything that acts on reality should be tested by looking at said reality.
While I was a Christian I looked into many other religions and read a few books about why people might have weird beliefs that necessitate gods, demons, aliens, and monsters. Back then I took the fact that there were so many religions as a sign that God had revealed himself in several different forms! Now, I think that people just create things from their imaginations and then start assigning properties to fit with the science of the times. Actus Purus, Fr0d0's model(however you would categorize it), and the TAG seem to be arguments that place God somewhere untouchable by science, which makes me say, (read as church lady) "How convenient!"
Rhizo
Youtube of the church lady: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnCZxLvYXI8
