Who understands God better? Those who study the natural world, which is said to be shaped by God himself or people who study scriptures which were clearly written by man.

If God really is the father of creation then it is the natural philosophers and scientists that truely study his work. Theologians study man, believing man to be God.

Good. Some aggressive Atheists, but not you, like to loudly and continually assert that that they know others' beliefs, and that those other beliefs are less justified than their own. — Michael Ossipoff

You quoted me and then responded to the quote by addressing “aggressive atheists”. Was it not your intention to attach the behaviour you describe to me? Obviously you have retracted the labeling if that is the case, but note how that was a fairly confusing way to make your point.

If everyone is God, as myself and millions of people believe, then all of 'us' are very familiar with God and even talk to Him/Her/It on a regular basis.

Billions of people think you are not God, so I guess that means you are not God. Since billions is greater than millions.

If everyone is God, as myself and millions of people believe, then all of 'us' are very familiar with God and even talk to Him/Her/It on a regular basis. — TWI

How would you differentiate that from delusion?

I did say'us'

How do you differentiate anything at all from delusion?

I can't differentiate with language only within myself.

I was mocking your "millions" comment. I don't actually care about your personal belifes.

I can't differentiate with language only within myself. — TWI

And how do you do that? Thats the exact thing Im asking you about, and wonder how you differentiate between that feeling you have and delusion.

There is no God people, rip the bandaid off and just accept the truth. The world will be better off when we can finally leave all this silly nonsense behind.

If your defense of God is nothing but pure subjective belife that means you have no evidence of God.

How do you differentiate anything at all from delusion? — Jeremiah

Objective corroboration.

Assuming that your brain is feeding you the truth. How do you know that it is?

Sir2u: Sorry there, but you do not understand the scope of science. Physics does not address the existence of everything. Does it address the existence of numbers? Or morality? Of the supernatural? Of God? No. Show me a single textbook used by any major western university that states physics addresses any supernatural claim? It doesn't exist. Physics only addresses material claims and makes no claims outside of the material. Period.

In fact, it's even worse for you. Science is essentially concerned with epistemology --- what we can know, more so than about what is.

My brain doesnt always feed me the truth. Its functions can be quite deceptive, and quite easily deceived, so as I said I think objective corroboration is the tool used.

Jeremiah: You claim there is no God. I don't believe in any God; however, I am unaware of any proof for the non-existence of any and all Gods. What is your proof? You'll be the first one in all of history to prove such a thing, so I can hardly wait to see your proof.

Well obviously I am unable to convey my feelings using written language, anyway I don't feel the need to convince anyone or defend them

Jeremiah: Name a single experiment that science can do to disprove the existence of God? I won't hold my breath. You claim that scientists have a better grasp of the existence of God than others? That tells me you know squat about actual science. Identify a single textbook in science used at any major western university that states science can even answer the question of whether a God exists? I won't hold my breath because you won't find such a book. A scientist is no more qualified than a non-scientist on the issue of whether God exists. It's irrational to think otherwise.

Clearly you have never been delusional, you know where you have delusions that seem objectively real but they are not. Remember when you were talking about delusions. Your senses can and very often mislead you, even in a healthy brain. Reason is the bootstraps of the mind, not your senses.

Are thoughts the function of a brain or is the brain just a device for conveying them?

Clearly a function of the brain. Does the light come from the candle or is the candle channeling it from the 7th layer of Heaven?

Sicence also cannot disprove there are elfs living on the Sun. Guess that means it's real.

If you are demanding evidence of an unfalsifiable claim you kind of just showed everyone it is you that needs to pick up a science text book.

Are thoughts the function of a brain or is the brain just a device for conveying them? — TWI

I would say the former, a function of the brain.

I don't know where the candle light comes from, I've read that it comes from the candle and converted by my eye into electrical impulses to be analyzed by my brain and interpreted as an image, but for all I know it could be a thought from God which is transmitted to my brain which converts it into electrical impulses that are fed to the eye which projects it as an image. Take your pick.

Do you know what the Law of Parsimony is? How about you do an empirical study and then apply the Law of Parsimony to your conclusions.

You obviously are not well informed or educated in the general philosophies of science and scientific investigation. Which means that you do not have a very solid position on which to assess the relation of science and God and instead it is you that does not understand the "scope of science".

I personally don't care what a theologian who has no back ground in physics thinks about physics. A scientist's opinion on the existence of God seems to me to carry no special weight, as science does not address the issue of whether a God exists and merely concerns itself with the knowledge claims we can make regarding the material world. Yet, for some reason, people seem to be concerned with what scientists think about the existence of God. — LD Saunders

The problem with this analogy, in my opinion, is that one can't be an expert on whether God exists in the same way that one can be an expert in physics or chemistry, say. Scientists and philosophers would be the closest we can get to experts on this, since they're dedicated to studying just what exists, just what the "nature" of various existents (and existence in general) are, etc.

Do theologians try to deceive? Well... I would think not. Not because theologians are always pure of heart, always honest, never deceptive, etc., but because they would have little to gain. As I see it, it isn't the job of theologians to convert anyone; that's the job of evangelists, missionaries, preachers. Theologians are academics, experts. Dishonesty would be no more welcome among theologians than it would be among physicists or medieval history scholars. — Bitter Crank

All right, so you don't think that theologians are intentionally trying to deceive us, and they are the experts on this subject, so what do you think is going on here, why don't we listen to them and believe in God? Maybe it's not so clear, maybe we really do think, deep down inside, that they're trying to deceive us, maybe it's some sort of subconscious belief.

Theologians are not of one mind on this point: Some think we are led, like horses, to water and are made to drink (by God); others take the view that we are more like horses and can be led to water, but can not be made to drink. On whatever basis, we have to decide to drink. — Bitter Crank

The theologians are the experts, they tell us we ought to drink, yet we refuse. But we're supposed to be rational beings, not horses. Is this a psychological problem, or are we just children, and refuse to do what we ought to do because we enjoy doing what we ought not do?

I didn't choose to acquire the set of god-concepts that I possess. It was handed to me as part of my childhood education and what followed from early instruction and the community intention that we would believe. I have found theologians very helpful in sorting out ideas about god and religion--because I was a believer in the first place. — Bitter Crank

This is the part that makes me wonder about deception. The childhood mind is extremely malleable and easily taken advantage of. And the theologians like to impress their principles onto the very young minds. They might appear to be experts on God and religion, when in reality they are experts on deception. How could we know the difference?

Acknowledging that theologians are experts on theology does not mean that theology is "true". The Genesis theogony says God made the world in 6 days. Most theologians interpret that story without claiming it is literally true. (Some think it is literally true.) Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge and were driven from the Garden. Theologians interpret this in very different ways. The flood which Noah survived (to become the second progenitor) is also interpreted in various ways.

What is True is that the story of the Creation, Garden of Eden, and the Flood are in the book of Genesis. The stories are not literally true (most theologians agree). What they mean figuratively is open to debate. It's open to debate because (most people assume) God did not sit down with pens and and a pile of goat skins to write his own story. At best, God inspired humans to write the story down. Many biblical scholars (another group of experts) believe that human writers compiled, elaborated on, and composed the stories from various sources. Whether God inspired their literary efforts is for the individual to decide, because there can be no proof of that.

The Bible is the authoritative source of information about God. It is authoritative, but many people do not believe it is "True." That is, it is not factually true about many matters--like the creation of the cosmos.

Theologians say that belief in God's existence, His infinite goodness, wisdom, authority, and power, depends on faith. (Some have claimed that God's existence can be logically proved, but never mind about that now. Someone else will have to rehearse scholastic logic.) If the Theogony in Genesis is not True, then faith is indeed required to accept the Bible as True.

I think we are horses that can be led to water but MUST decide whether it is fit to drink or not. No matter where we begin, I think we are going to come back to this point: The individual, be that you, me, or Stephen Hawking has to make that decision.

Claiming that God doesn't exist doesn't tread upon the toes of theologians. Theologians interpret the scriptures the best they can. They aren't responsible for the scripture's authorship or truthfulness. Do you understand the Doctrine of the Trinity? Ask a theologian. Do you think the Trinity exists (in any way, shape, manner, or form)? You have to decide that. What does the Resurrection mean? Ask a theologian. Do you believe it? You have to decide that.

There is another "layer" here to contend with. The Bible was not written, printed, and hidden away to be found by the Elect who would read it and believe. It was pretty much written by people who already believed the stories they were writing. This is even more true with the New Testament, which was compiled and edited by the church which was already in nascent form when the thing was put together and on the last page they wrote, "The End". The Church wrote its own founding documents. Nothing wrong with that, by the way. It's just a fact, not a criticism.