False prophets, false cults, and religions

Quote from charles052 : A quick google search is all you need. Here's an excellent page that has some examples: http://www.clarifyingchristianity...ence.shtml

To be more specific, I'm looking for evidence of the supernatural elements that are mentioned in the Bible (e.g. existence of God, Jesus's miracles, etc). The website you link are just observations of the physical world that are found in the Bible.

Quote from CyberGuy : So I guess in your opinion, there's absolutely no way to differentiate one person who is delusional (hearing voices in this head) and someone who is being spoken to by a "higher power"? Quote from Doctor_Wu : Typically delusion reveals itself as such by being associated with an unbalanced individual. But if you are in search of something that would rise to the level of 'proof' then I don't think that is going to be forthcoming. On the other hand, to dismiss all claims of revelation as the product of a deluded mind is more than we can reasonably establish.

It is my understanding that one way to differentiate between a person who is delusional (hearing voices in this head) and someone who is being spoken to by a "higher power" is that if the person says or does anything contrary to or in disobedience of the Bible as a result of "being spoken to by a "higher power"", then he is not receiving his instruction from the true God, since it would be contrary to His word. I'm not saying that is the only test or that passing that test indicates he is truly receiving instruction from God, but that it is a way to rule out many of the phonies from the start.

Quote from TRNT : Please give an example of this. Thanks. For example "vinegar is wet" (not a definition btw ) is consistent with science and also supported by science.

Again, calling something 'wet' has to do with concepts and definitions, not a claim about the world that is discovered by science.

I can claim that gravity is caused by angels pushing on objects and there is nothing in science I can do to disprove it, therefore the claim is consistent with science.

The decay rate of all radioactive elements has changed to become much slower recently causing radiometric dating methods reporting dates to report things much older than they really are.
This statement is consistent with scientific concepts of half-life and dating methods but there is no actual evidence to support the claim.

All organisms use DNA and humans share 50% of their DNA with roundworms. This is because a designer chose to reuse certain roundworm genes and use them in humans. Again, consistent with scientific findings but not a conclusion that is derived by looking at the evidence objectively.

Quote from skiman : The idea of a prophecy or communion with a higher power as a rare or singular gift isn't the deal-breaker for me. It's that none of these religions can validate their claims. I suppose that's the beauty of making outlandish, untestable claims.

But that is the basis for all religions/cults. It is not necessarily fact based but faith based. You take some plausible ideas that can't be proven or disproven and it is because of faith that the followers adhere to the religion/cult. Can anyone PROVE that God doesn't exist? Can you prove that God didn't create life or the Universe? No you can't. Despite the fact that there is some strong scientific evidence for evolution, followers believe differently based on faith. I realize that I'm a bit off topic so to answer the OP's question, I agree with those that said the difference is scale. They both rely on faith but the main difference is kind of like the difference between a village and a city.

As a small aside, if it is ever possible to prove that God does not exist, I believe that would cause worldwide riots as people's worlds would be turned upside down.

Quote from darkfrog : Again, calling something 'wet' has to do with concepts and definitions, not a claim about the world that is discovered by science.

I totally reject that. Definition of wet is independent of water. "Water is wet" or "vinegar is wet" are observations that are easily verified. If that still bother you a lot switch "water is wet" with "sky is blue".

Quote from darkfrog : I can claim that gravity is caused by angels pushing on objects and there is nothing in science I can do to disprove it, therefore the claim is consistent with science.

Then you and I have very different understanding of the term "consistent". If you have any scholarly publication/cite/report that makes a similar claim about a claim which involves angels, please provide it.

Perhaps I am wrong but I don't think so.

Quote from andyfico : But that is the basis for all religions/cults. It is not necessarily fact based but faith based. You take some plausible ideas that can't be proven or disproven and it is because of faith that the followers adhere to the religion/cult. Can anyone PROVE that God doesn't exist? Can you prove that God didn't create life or the Universe? No you can't. Despite the fact that there is some strong scientific evidence for evolution, followers believe differently based on faith. I realize that I'm a bit off topic so to answer the OP's question, I agree with those that said the difference is scale. They both rely on faith but the main difference is kind of like the difference between a village and a city. As a small aside, if it is ever possible to prove that God does not exist, I believe that would cause worldwide riots as people's worlds would be turned upside down.

I do not know if that was a moment of intentional or unintentional honesty but the religious nuts would vehemently disagree with you on that. I totally agree that we cannot prove god does not exist. Now if you could make Charles agree that we cannot prove god does exist, then I think you should win a noble prize and more importantly my admiration.

Quote from TRNT : I totally reject that. Definition of wet is independent of water. "Water is wet" or "vinegar is wet" are observations that are easily verified. If that still bother you a lot switch "water is wet" with "sky is blue".

Those are observations, not conclusions based on any hypothesis. Wetness is defined by that which has to do with water or liquids. Blue skies are observed, the color blue is a defined concept, not a conclusion derived from evidence.

Quote : Then you and I have very different understanding of the term "consistent". If you have any scholarly publication/cite/report that makes a similar claim about a claim which involves angels, please provide it. Perhaps I am wrong but I don't think so.

Again, I can create a hypothesis of angels pushing, holding things to the earth which is completely consistent with observation. Do YOU know what gravity is? Prove my angel hypothesis wrong. You seem to not understand what I'm saying about being consistent with. I am pointing out how being consistent with science is NOT the same thing as demonstrating scientific knowledge.

I'm trying to pick examples that are not exactly biblical but follow the same outline as those things which are claimed by some in which the bible is consistent with science. In fact, science has continually shown the bible to be wrong in many places but then the words are reinterpreted to be in line with what science says. It is these reinterpretations that are consistent with science, as they are made after the fact, but are not evidence of scientific truth, because they did not lead anyone to come to those conclusions until science gave us the answers.

Quote from TRNT : I do not know if that was a moment of intentional or unintentional honesty but the religious nuts would vehemently disagree with you on that. I totally agree that we cannot prove god does not exist. Now if you could make Charles agree that we cannot prove god does exist, then I think you should win a noble prize and more importantly my admiration.

I can't prove that God exists but if we could prove it, IMO it would no longer be a religion. Religion is faith based. If we definitively knew that God existed, Religion would become more of a political party led by God,Allah etc than a religion.

How do you see a moment of honesty in what I said?

Quote from darkfrog : Those are observations, not conclusions based on any hypothesis. Wetness is defined by that which has to do with water or liquids. Blue skies are observed, the color blue is a defined concept, not a conclusion derived from evidence.

So a physicist measures the size of An atom and you say this is not science or a conclusion and is just definition?

Btw, not all liquids are wet. It is a scientific finding to say vinegar is wet, for example.

Quote from darkfrog : Again, I can create a hypothesis of angels pushing, holding things to the earth which is completely consistent with observation. Do YOU know what gravity is? Prove my angel hypothesis wrong. You seem to not understand what I'm saying about being consistent with. I am pointing out how being consistent with science is NOT the same thing as demonstrating scientific knowledge. I'm trying to pick examples that are not exactly biblical but follow the same outline as those things which are claimed by some in which the bible is consistent with science. In fact, science has continually shown the bible to be wrong in many places but then the words are reinterpreted to be in line with what science says. It is these reinterpretations that are consistent with science, as they are made after the fact, but are not evidence of scientific truth, because they did not lead anyone to come to those conclusions until science gave us the answers.

Well, this is a bit different than the previous claim. I disagree that if something cannot be proven wrong, therefore it is consistent with science. To be consistent with science, at the very least it must be falsifiable and testable.

Quote from andyfico : I can't prove that God exists but if we could prove it, IMO it would no longer be a religion. Religion is faith based. If we definitively knew that God existed, Religion would become more of a political party led by God,Allah etc than a religion. How do you see a moment of honesty in what I said?

No.







HarHarHar

Quote from TRNT : No. HarHarHar

Alrighty then. I'm totally confused. Nice talking to you.

Quote from andyfico : Alrighty then. I'm totally confused. Nice talking to you.

Saying if and when we proved god exists religion would become like political parties is your opinion. I am not sure if I agree with that.

But the bigger, IMO, point was this. You are aware, are you not, that religious nuts claim it is a proven fact that god exists?

Quote from TRNT : Saying if and when we proved god exists religion would become like political parties is your opinion. I am not sure if I agree with that. But the bigger, IMO, point was this. You are aware, are you not, that religious nuts claim it is a proven fact that god exists?

That's fine if they believe that. I'm talking about if we proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt to skeptics and non believers. Or if God revealed himself. He would then be a tangible part of this world.

Quote from charles052 : One can't logically consider Christianity to be a false religion. Too much of it is backed by science and evidence, even if a lot of it is circumstantial.

Can't the same thing be said for Zoroastrianism, Mormonism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.?