What do you believe in then? Or, is everything pretty much spelled out in terms of matter-of-fact to you? If, by your own admission however, you are a creature of belief, then that opens up the door of possibility that there is a God. Why? Because that tells us that man is religious by nature.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

There are several meanings of belief. If you speak of the "belief" of Christians, or other religious groups, you refer to the dogma of the church, which each member carries more or less intact from the teachings of the church.

You can also have an individual set of dogmatic beliefs which are things you have decided are correct and cannot be assailed. This is sometimes called "faith".

But morality is a different kind of belief. These are beliefs born out of personal conviction, and may or may not have resulted from teaching from church, family and others. A lot of them are offshoots of the Golden Rule. They vary widely, even within a Church group.

You can also use "believe" to mean that you accept that another is telling the truth as they know it, as a lawer might say, "I believe your story so I'll take the case."

Then there are things which are simple preferences, like "I believe I'll have the lasagna today."

It is a big mistake to use these different definitions interchangably, or to insist that another's morality is the same kind of belief as your dogma.

As the old joke goes. "Everybody should believe something. I believe I'll have another drink."

A belief is merely a relative interpretation of that which is absolute. Does the fact that the apple sits on the table mean the apple exists in the absolute sense? Yes. However, what we think or believe we see on the table (or, even if we eat it) is another story. So, guess what? Reality is pretty much what we believe it to be (up to a point) and yet, it's based upon that which is absolute.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Does this also apply to your belief in absolutes? If so, then you are once again caught in self-contradictory logic.

Or do you give a special exemption to this rule for "belief in absolutes"?

Yes, absolutes do exist, except noone is fully capable of assessing what they are except that which is omniscient. Need I say more?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Yes, you need to say more. If noone can assess what they are, then how can you be sure they exist? Do you simply believe that they must? If this is an article of faith, then you really shouldn't proclaim it as "truth".

Peter Noone?

How do we know that electrons and protons actually exist? Has anyone ever seen one?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Iacchus, go read "a short history of nearly everything" by Bill Bryson. He writes this because he had all these cool questions about science that were never fully explained to him in school...so he went out and asked experts, and distills all of this into a very readable and engaging form. I loved this book--no, it does not explain it in complete scientific detail, but it does make it accessable to the interested layperson.

But the short answer is...we have piles more evidence for the existence of electrons and protons than we do for God.

The only problem I have with Science (in and of itself) is that it's too dry and boring, unless of course it incorporates something about naked ladies or, things of a spiritual nature, then I might be more interested.

So? I have piles of evidence that God exists, in my book ...

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I don't know what science you are speaking about; the science I know is exciting, and it is real. (and if you pick the right parts of science, then yes, you get to study naked ladies.)That, sir, is a lie.

Yes, if it were actually based upon that which was real it might be something, but it isn't. While here, I'm speaking of the greater spiritual reality which courses through everything. By the way, have you had a chance to read the thread, Life is Just an Illusion?

Yes, one of us must be a liar or, at the very least, seriously mistaken.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Um...if it is the thing you linked to, I have posted to the thread numerous times. So, yes, I have read it. What relevance does it have to this thread? Is it just another example of your failure to provide evidence when asked?I suggest that it is you. You could very easily prove me wrong, though; you claim you have "piles of evidence", to counter my statement that there was more evidence for electrons and protons. Show me even one piece of credible evidence that god exists--even one piece--from your book, and I will consider myself wrong. If you have "piles" of it, it should be the easiest thing in the world to do.

Actually I was well aware of that. I was just testing you, that's all.

Well, I suppose we're just going to have to take your word for it now aren't we? And no, I don't think it would be any different than the speculation which is compiled in your books.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Wow, who'd have thought, as rude as I sometimes appear, that I treat you with more respect than you treat me.No, we do not have to take my word for it. I have asked you to show your evidence--just one piece out of the piles you claim you have--and we can all see. No need to take my word for it at all. (I must say, though, that I honestly did not expect you to show any, and I was wondering what form your evasion would take.)

Speculation? Oh, wait...I think I see. Because science recognizes that something could have happened by chance even in a well-controlled experiment (even phrasing our answers in terms of their chance probabilities), while you refuse to recognize that your dreams might be just dreams, you are trying to suggest that your fantasy is more accurate than science's empirical research. Is that what you are attempting here?

After all this time, you have gained no appreciation nor understanding of the methods of science? Is this whole forum just a smokescreen? Do you really have no interest in learning whatsoever? Sad.

Asking for proof to believe in God is like asking somebody to prove that he/she is in love. How this is ever possible?

I could show you the love letters. I could show you the phone bills. I could show you the lover.

Show me God.

Despite what they say in movies ("Contact", wasn't it?), it is quite possible to empirically study love. (ooh, but thank you for reminding me--my students made this same objection, and I need to remember to bring in a few of my books to class. Yup, textbooks full of research on love, sex, intimacy, attachment....)

If you have ever been in love, you know that it makes a huge impact on your life. As I have said here in other threads, if it makes a difference we can study it. Even such a non-romantic as J. B. Watson (the founder of behaviorism) said it was imperative that we study love--if we cannot examine this important aspect of being human, then what good is our science?

Love letters and phone bills say nothing actually as you know very well. I never claimed that I can show you God but on the other hand you cannot question the religious feelings I might have.

The fact that science might not be in position to examine an aspect of life or an experience doesn't mean that science is of no use. Funny scientists those behaviorists if they believe such things....

Even though that there must be difficulties even to define love it's not impossible. The fact that you examine something though doesn't mean that you will come up with an answer.

Also, as I have posted in JREF I am rather skeptical about the scientific explanation of love because although it has a theory on how we fall in love, it doesn't give any explanation on how we stop being in love with somebody.