Out of body religious experiences

[TomOfSweden]

My faith is intensly personal, mostly because I was not looking for it. One of the reasons I like to point to C. S. Lewis is that his journey to faith was similar to mine. He described God as "The Hound of Heaven," and said that God loved Him enough to drag him "Kicking and screaming through the gates of heaven."

His journey and mine were similar because I had given up finding God, even though I had decided that Christianity was the faith that made the most sense, I was unable to make the leap of faith to believe. Then my life hit a low point, and I tried bargaining with God. Surprisingly enough, that did not work. I say surprisingly because there are a lot of testimonies about how God helps people out of jams like an indulgent father.

My life went from bad to worse, yet I struggled on. Then one day, God reached down and got my attention. He basically told me that He does not make deals to get people to follow Him, they either do it in the midst of trouble, or they do not. That is their choice, and mine. He drug me into His house, made me believe, than let me choose. Very personal thing, but not the sort of testimony that inspires others to believe, yet I do.

You seem reluctant to share with us your “intensely personal” reasons that permitted you to make a rational leap of faith, so I won’t push it. I’ve so far never seen or heard an explanation for belief in God that is in any way supported by anything rational. I always get this “secret club” vibe, where the key isn’t to understand anything, because there’s nothing to understand, only to convince oneself that one does, without testing it as much as you really would need to. Somebody saying that “you’ll understand it when it happens to you”, doesn’t fly with me. In this case, it to me implies that there’s nothing there.

We are, the language is different is all. I am not defending Christianity as much as I am promoting the existence of God. Most of the accepted tenets of Christianity are not supported in the Bible.

My interpretation of God is based on my understanding of the Bible, and of nature itself. I find myself in conflict with a lot of people who want to paint God in a different light than I see Him. I try not to accept something just because everyone lese does. This makes me quite a few enemies along the way.

Sorry, I don’t think I was clear enough. I was wondering about the link between God and the Bible. What phenomena or religious experiences have caused you to give any validity to the Bible? People have all through out history had religious experiences and only in recent times in geographically limited areas have they drawn the conclusion that it must be the being described in the Bible. This I would have thought would make it a lot more difficult to accept that any supernatural phenomena be linked to the Bible. It would need a very strong connection. So where is this connection? When God appears, does it refer to passages or something? What makes you so sure that your experiences can be linked to a specific book? Couldn’t the God be another religions God? Or as in the case of Buddhism, can’t the God be you?

You also tend to lump me in with what you think of as Christians, at least you used to as I know you do not think of me that way now.

Our discussions have taught me a lot about Christians and Christian perceptions of the world. But it has admittedly caused me to understand Christians less, because I still don’t see how somebody as enlightened as you manage to draw the conclusions you do. I still have a fair bit to go I think.

[Rhabbi]

You seem reluctant to share with us your “intensely personal” reasons that permitted you to make a rational leap of faith, so I won’t push it. I’ve so far never seen or heard an explanation for belief in God that is in any way supported by anything rational. I always get this “secret club” vibe, where the key isn’t to understand anything, because there’s nothing to understand, only to convince oneself that one does, without testing it as much as you really would need to. Somebody saying that “you’ll understand it when it happens to you”, doesn’t fly with me. In this case, it to me implies that there’s nothing there.

I guess I was not clear enough here. I described the event that caused me to believe in the existence of God despite my doubts. This event is the part that is personal, not the chain of reasoning. I am willing to lay it out for you, though not to debate it because I will admit that I cannot prove God's existence. I just learned a bit about a few different scientific disciplines and decided that "Random Chance" has no more validity as an explanation than anything else. This is what opened the way for God to step in and prove his existence to me in a personal manner.

Sorry, I don’t think I was clear enough. I was wondering about the link between God and the Bible. What phenomena or religious experiences have caused you to give any validity to the Bible? People have all through out history had religious experiences and only in recent times in geographically limited areas have they drawn the conclusion that it must be the being described in the Bible. This I would have thought would make it a lot more difficult to accept that any supernatural phenomena be linked to the Bible. It would need a very strong connection. So where is this connection? When God appears, does it refer to passages or something? What makes you so sure that your experiences can be linked to a specific book? Couldn’t the God be another religions God? Or as in the case of Buddhism, can’t the God be you?

This is a bit shakier to explain. I know that when I read the Bible I get closer to God. does this mean that this is the only way for God to interact with man? No. I never made that claim, and never will. God is capable of doing whatever he wants as far as talking to His creation. I believe a lot of His communication comes from the very foundations of creation. The Bible actually talks about this process in a few places, and this is why I make the connection between God and the Bible, not between God and the "Christian" interpretation of the Bible.

Our discussions have taught me a lot about Christians and Christian perceptions of the world. But it has admittedly caused me to understand Christians less, because I still don’t see how somebody as enlightened as you manage to draw the conclusions you do. I still have a fair bit to go I think.

We all do. going from my education and reading to a belief in God was not an easy one. First I had to learn that science did not have the answers. The more I studied the details of creation, even of a simple cell, the less that I was able to believe in the concept that the long string of improbable chances could occur. Having blind faith in science is as silly as having blind faith in anything else. This did not immediately lead me to believe in God, but it opened the door to the possibility of something else.

[TomOfSweden]

I guess I was not clear enough here. I described the event that caused me to believe in the existence of God despite my doubts. This event is the part that is personal, not the chain of reasoning. I am willing to lay it out for you, though not to debate it because I will admit that I cannot prove God's existence. I just learned a bit about a few different scientific disciplines and decided that "Random Chance" has no more validity as an explanation than anything else. This is what opened the way for God to step in and prove his existence to me in a personal manner.

You obviously think you can prove god's existence. Since you believe it. I think that what you mean is that you don't know of how to translate that experience in a way so will make it as convincing to others as it was to you? "Proof" only means something which can be used to prove a case, for yourself or others. Without proof, we will believe nothing. Religious or not. Because without proof we will never have even thought the thought from which to take the leap of faith. There's other types of proof than scientific proof. The handy thing with scientific proof is off-course that the rules for how to judge it are a lot less vague.

But still. You're not saying much.

This is a bit shakier to explain. I know that when I read the Bible I get closer to God. does this mean that this is the only way for God to interact with man? No. I never made that claim, and never will. God is capable of doing whatever he wants as far as talking to His creation. I believe a lot of His communication comes from the very foundations of creation. The Bible actually talks about this process in a few places, and this is why I make the connection between God and the Bible, not between God and the "Christian" interpretation of the Bible.

Yeah, but what's the link? How does it work? What makes you believe the Christian Bible got it any more right than the Bhagavad Ghita? If liberally interpreted they're the same text. Since all gods are reincarnations of Brahma, they have exactly the same myth of creation.

We all do. going from my education and reading to a belief in God was not an easy one. First I had to learn that science did not have the answers. The more I studied the details of creation, even of a simple cell, the less that I was able to believe in the concept that the long string of improbable chances could occur. Having blind faith in science is as silly as having blind faith in anything else. This did not immediately lead me to believe in God, but it opened the door to the possibility of something else.

I'm disappointed. Now your pulling this down to a kindergarten level again.

Yeah.....but that's not much of an argument for anything. Saying that science doesn't have the answers, doesn't really strengthen the case for theism does it? We've been over this before. You're treating it like there's a finite number of choices of faith. There isn't. And just because science doesn't have the answer now, doesn't mean it'll never have the answer.

...and it's also pretty arrogant to say that just because you can't understand a theory, that it doesn't have merit. Evolution isn't random and anybody saying it hasn't a clue. We had you eat your words before here on the Library.

I think your logical error is that you equate life on earth with this life. A bit like rolling a million sixes in a row on a dice. Sure, that's highly unlikely. But if anywhere along the line you would have rolled something else, we still would have life. It would just have looked different. There's no scientific reason to assume life springing up on earth is a particularly unlikely event.

Gravity effects matter on the molecular and atomic level differently than on the macro level. That's why you think that the function of cells are so improbable. We can't really apply common sense because we can't really understand it. [Insert quantum mechanic quote of your choice]. Since our last talk here I chatted some more with my micro biologist friend. There's nothing amazing or unlikely about it. It's just extremely hard to grasp if you don't have a degree in maths. A lot of it is admittedly still blank holes. We don't have a complete picture. But that isn't in the least a case for god and certainly not the Bible.

[Rhabbi]

You obviously think you can prove god's existence. Since you believe it. I think that what you mean is that you don't know of how to translate that experience in a way so will make it as convincing to others as it was to you? "Proof" only means something which can be used to prove a case, for yourself or others. Without proof, we will believe nothing. Religious or not. Because without proof we will never have even thought the thought from which to take the leap of faith. There's other types of proof than scientific proof. The handy thing with scientific proof is off-course that the rules for how to judge it are a lot less vague.

But still. You're not saying much.

I often point to quantum physics as evidence that the universe has a sense of humor, and that it is playing a joke on everybody in it. Proof of God's existence is a bit hard to pin down, but evidence is another matter. Your idol Dawkins makes a convincing argument for the possibility of miracles, though he seems to think that understanding the universe is beyond our evolutionary ability. His arguments also lacked a fundamental understanding of the nature of the interaction between matter and energy on a quantum level. That is a fundamental problem with specialization of knowledge, and although I do not understand all the math and physics, I at least know enough to find some of his speculation a bit far fetched.

Yeah, but what's the link? How does it work? What makes you believe the Christian Bible got it any more right than the Bhagavad Ghita? If liberally interpreted they're the same text. Since all gods are reincarnations of Brahma, they have exactly the same myth of creation.

Maybe the reason they all are the same is because they are all holdovers from our original ancestors after creation. If the story started as truth, then all the variations could easily be attributed to human differences. Did you ever play that game where on person whispers something to another, and then to another? the more people in that chain, the more different the final outcome is, and this is with something simple.

On to your question, I would have to say that the reason I chose the Bible is mostly cultural. The Bible is where I first looked for God, and when I started to get serious about Him it is where I searched deeper. One of the things that separates the Bible from other holy books is the internal consistency and claims. Does the Bhagavad Ghita make the claim to divine inspiration? Is there a god in it that actually claims to have created everything? If these are there, I must have missed them.

I'm disappointed. Now your pulling this down to a kindergarten level again.

Yeah.....but that's not much of an argument for anything. Saying that science doesn't have the answers, doesn't really strengthen the case for theism does it? We've been over this before. You're treating it like there's a finite number of choices of faith. There isn't. And just because science doesn't have the answer now, doesn't mean it'll never have the answer.

...and it's also pretty arrogant to say that just because you can't understand a theory, that it doesn't have merit. Evolution isn't random and anybody saying it hasn't a clue. We had you eat your words before here on the Library.

I think your logical error is that you equate life on earth with this life. A bit like rolling a million sixes in a row on a dice. Sure, that's highly unlikely. But if anywhere along the line you would have rolled something else, we still would have life. It would just have looked different. There's no scientific reason to assume life springing up on earth is a particularly unlikely event.

Gravity effects matter on the molecular and atomic level differently than on the macro level. That's why you think that the function of cells are so improbable. We can't really apply common sense because we can't really understand it. [Insert quantum mechanic quote of your choice]. Since our last talk here I chatted some more with my micro biologist friend. There's nothing amazing or unlikely about it. It's just extremely hard to grasp if you don't have a degree in maths. A lot of it is admittedly still blank holes. We don't have a complete picture. But that isn't in the least a case for god and certainly not the Bible.

I am aware enough about math to understand the arguments that some scientists use to support that molecular biology is not as improbable as some suggest. I agree that certain chemicals can only combine in certain ways, but they ignore the fact that long chains of improbable events have to occur to make all of this work. Inside the cell we have chemical interactions that cannot proceed independent of each other that are individually improbable, and these scientists want me to accept that they occur by chance. The odds are against it. Sure, it is possible if we postulate certain improbable conditions, and make the argument that conditions were different then. Not impossible, but then they turn around and argue for the consistency of conditions to prove other portions of their theories, a bit confusing to me.

As for your argument that life is something that was all but inevitable no matter what random events occur, where is the proof of that? That is asking me to totally through out the Laws of Thermodynamics and believe that entropy will always reverse to create life. You want me to believe that the laws of physics can be suspended, but not in a God that actually suspends them. Which of us is taking the larger leap of faith?

Tell your microbiologist friend to stop being so arrogant and take a look at the real world. there is a guy with no formal training that the United States Navy, as well as most other ocean going powers, to track and predict waves at sea. Most astronomical discoveries are made by amateurs without the training of the professionals. Mathematical advances are made everyday by people who do not have degrees. An education does not give him a better understanding of the way the universe works, despite what he was taught by his close minded professors who want to throw out other possibilities simply because the person advancing them does not have a degree in microbiology.

Soprry, sort of a soap box ther. I can actually walk into JPL in Pasadena and discuss the advances of quantum physics and astrophysics with PhD's that do not look down on me because I do not have a degree because they are smart enough to know that degrees are do not indicate intelligence, but a microbiologists wants to try and tell me that I cannot possibly understand simple statistics because I do not have a degree. I just tend to get my fur up when I run into that attitude, and it is not you I am upset about. I do not know what you know about math, but statistics are pretty straightforward and simple. You take all the variables, and all the possibilities, and you chrunch a few numbers, and the results come out.

[TomOfSweden]

I often point to quantum physics as evidence that the universe has a sense of humor, and that it is playing a joke on everybody in it. Proof of God's existence is a bit hard to pin down, but evidence is another matter. Your idol Dawkins makes a convincing argument for the possibility of miracles, though he seems to think that understanding the universe is beyond our evolutionary ability. His arguments also lacked a fundamental understanding of the nature of the interaction between matter and energy on a quantum level. That is a fundamental problem with specialization of knowledge, and although I do not understand all the math and physics, I at least know enough to find some of his speculation a bit far fetched.

But your idol Jesus has poopy ..... just kidding.

Dawkins arguments for a lack an understanding of quantum mechanics is that we all do. None of us have a clue. Just because you say that there is a creator and it knows, doesn't really add to your case does it? You have no way of verifying it with the diety, do you?

Maybe the reason they all are the same is because they are all holdovers from our original ancestors after creation. If the story started as truth, then all the variations could easily be attributed to human differences. Did you ever play that game where on person whispers something to another, and then to another? the more people in that chain, the more different the final outcome is, and this is with something simple.

On to your question, I would have to say that the reason I chose the Bible is mostly cultural. The Bible is where I first looked for God, and when I started to get serious about Him it is where I searched deeper. One of the things that separates the Bible from other holy books is the internal consistency and claims. Does the Bhagavad Ghita make the claim to divine inspiration? Is there a god in it that actually claims to have created everything? If these are there, I must have missed them.

To me at least, you're now starting to make sense. But you at a stroke insert a massive dose of uncertainty into the Bible. How can we use religious texts to understand god better? If the Bible is later in the whispering chain, how does that increase the case for the Bible.

I don't think anybody knows the origins of the Bhagavad Ghita. It references wars about 3000 BC around Hampi. I think it's in Karnataka, India.That's about it. I think it's really cool that some of the buildings referenced are still standing and can still be visited today. They are very old. Since it explains the supernatural and dieties, I'd say it can be assumed that who ever wrote it, thought they did it on divine inspiration. I can't think of any religious text that wouldn't be considered as such. Don't forget that at the time all kings and anybody very famous for anything was considered a god of sorts. That goes for Europe to. So it needs plenty of critical reading.

A central theme in Hinduism is that everything is part of and a reincarnation of Brahman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

So Brahman isn't just the creator of the universe, but also the universe itself and we are part of it. We are god. Brahman created itself BTW. Take that Escher. I personally find that their model that makes a whole lot more sense, than god being an external entity, but hey, that's me.

I am aware enough about math to understand the arguments that some scientists use to support that molecular biology is not as improbable as some suggest. I agree that certain chemicals can only combine in certain ways, but they ignore the fact that long chains of improbable events have to occur to make all of this work. Inside the cell we have chemical interactions that cannot proceed independent of each other that are individually improbable, and these scientists want me to accept that they occur by chance. The odds are against it. Sure, it is possible if we postulate certain improbable conditions, and make the argument that conditions were different then. Not impossible, but then they turn around and argue for the consistency of conditions to prove other portions of their theories, a bit confusing to me.

As for your argument that life is something that was all but inevitable no matter what random events occur, where is the proof of that? That is asking me to totally through out the Laws of Thermodynamics and believe that entropy will always reverse to create life. You want me to believe that the laws of physics can be suspended, but not in a God that actually suspends them. Which of us is taking the larger leap of faith?

Tell your microbiologist friend to stop being so arrogant and take a look at the real world. there is a guy with no formal training that the United States Navy, as well as most other ocean going powers, to track and predict waves at sea. Most astronomical discoveries are made by amateurs without the training of the professionals. Mathematical advances are made everyday by people who do not have degrees. An education does not give him a better understanding of the way the universe works, despite what he was taught by his close minded professors who want to throw out other possibilities simply because the person advancing them does not have a degree in microbiology.

Soprry, sort of a soap box ther. I can actually walk into JPL in Pasadena and discuss the advances of quantum physics and astrophysics with PhD's that do not look down on me because I do not have a degree because they are smart enough to know that degrees are do not indicate intelligence, but a microbiologists wants to try and tell me that I cannot possibly understand simple statistics because I do not have a degree. I just tend to get my fur up when I run into that attitude, and it is not you I am upset about. I do not know what you know about math, but statistics are pretty straightforward and simple. You take all the variables, and all the possibilities, and you chrunch a few numbers, and the results come out.

The truth is that we don't know how unlikely it is that life occurs. Our statistical population is one and it gives us a positive for life at every reading. Statistically we can't say much. And in none of the models except the creationist model is the laws of thermodynamics broken. As far as I know, nobody has said that life is inevitable, as Mars and the Moon has proven.

"Inside the cell we have chemical interactions that cannot proceed independent of each other that are individually improbable, and these scientists want me to accept that they occur by chance. The odds are against it."

This is just wrong. It's just creationist propaganda. I'm no molecular biologist but pretty much the whole scientific community doesn't seem to feel the need to insert god anywhere here. The problem is that the people who have the training to understand this can't explain it to us without the training, because it's far too counter intuitive.

To me it made no sense at all. I saw some research on some muscle in mouse lungs in it might as well have been in Greek. it it was pretty electron microscope pictures. The thing is that I have taken the leap of faith that scientists aren't wilfully trying to trick me and when they make statements that go completely unchallenged by a world of lab coats, that it's as close to truth as I believe I'll personally get. The leap of faith required to believe in scientific theories isn't particularly great is it?

I find it strange that an enlightened person like you feel the need to question them. You don't even believe in a literal reading of the Bible, so I don't get the conflict? What's wrong with believing that God created the conditions for life to assemble through random occurrences? Alistar mcGrath, Dawkins biggest critic, a Christian and a molecular biologist sees no conflict between evolution and the Bible. Why do you?

Always when private people discover stuff their academic background researching the stuff in question always pops up. Like Einstein for example. But recently it's completely unheard of. Beside that pastor in the Australian outback who's discovered a shit load of stars, who is there? And his discoveries dropped off to near zero after Hubble was launched.

[Rhabbi]

But your idol Jesus has poopy ..... just kidding.

I can take a joke Tom, np.

Dawkins arguments for a lack an understanding of quantum mechanics is that we all do. None of us have a clue. Just because you say that there is a creator and it knows, doesn't really add to your case does it? You have no way of verifying it with the diety, do you?

Nope, but the fact that he argues for the existence of miracles in one breath, and then against the few instances that we have of them being recorded from history is a bit wishy washy, imo.

To me at least, you're now starting to make sense. But you at a stroke insert a massive dose of uncertainty into the Bible. How can we use religious texts to understand god better? If the Bible is later in the whispering chain, how does that increase the case for the Bible.

I don't think anybody knows the origins of the Bhagavad Ghita. It references wars about 3000 BC around Hampi. I think it's in Karnataka, India.That's about it. I think it's really cool that some of the buildings referenced are still standing and can still be visited today. They are very old. Since it explains the supernatural and dieties, I'd say it can be assumed that who ever wrote it, thought they did it on divine inspiration. I can't think of any religious text that wouldn't be considered as such. Don't forget that at the time all kings and anybody very famous for anything was considered a god of sorts. That goes for Europe to. So it needs plenty of critical reading.

A central theme in Hinduism is that everything is part of and a reincarnation of Brahman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

So Brahman isn't just the creator of the universe, but also the universe itself and we are part of it. We are god. Brahman created itself BTW. Take that Escher. I personally find that their model that makes a whole lot more sense, than god being an external entity, but hey, that's me.

In a way I agree with you. Which is one reason I kind of like the idea that the universe is a joke we cooked up among ourselves, and the biggest part of the joke is that we forgot.

My understanding of Scripture causes me to believe something similar. we are all part of God.

The truth is that we don't know how unlikely it is that life occurs. Our statistical population is one and it gives us a positive for life at every reading. Statistically we can't say much. And in none of the models except the creationist model is the laws of thermodynamics broken. As far as I know, nobody has said that life is inevitable, as Mars and the Moon has proven.

"Inside the cell we have chemical interactions that cannot proceed independent of each other that are individually improbable, and these scientists want me to accept that they occur by chance. The odds are against it."

This is just wrong. It's just creationist propaganda. I'm no molecular biologist but pretty much the whole scientific community doesn't seem to feel the need to insert god anywhere here. The problem is that the people who have the training to understand this can't explain it to us without the training, because it's far too counter intuitive.

To me it made no sense at all. I saw some research on some muscle in mouse lungs in it might as well have been in Greek. it it was pretty electron microscope pictures. The thing is that I have taken the leap of faith that scientists aren't wilfully trying to trick me and when they make statements that go completely unchallenged by a world of lab coats, that it's as close to truth as I believe I'll personally get. The leap of faith required to believe in scientific theories isn't particularly great is it?

I do believe in scientific theories, I just do not know whose argument to believe. My point is that people who do have the training to understand these supposed arguments are making these counter claims. Why do their opponents then try to make the argument that I cannot understand because I do not have the training to comprehend the argument. I know from experience that I can learn the basics of even complex math rather quickly. someone trying to tell me their is no way I can understand is actually telling me that he is not as sure of his arguments as he claims, or that he does not want to take the time to make me understand.

I am watching the reformation of theories about how solar systems form based on new findings from the Hubble. We are learning that most of the theories we had based on looking at our system are wrong, and that it is getting a little harder to explain why this system formed the way it did. Scientist hoped to find Super Jupiters, but we have been stumbling over them at such an astounding rate that we are learning that the ideas we had are wrong. I am not saying that the solar system we live in is inexplicable, just a bit more unlikely then we thought.

If we were wrong about that, what else can we be wrong about?

I find it strange that an enlightened person like you feel the need to question them. You don't even believe in a literal reading of the Bible, so I don't get the conflict? What's wrong with believing that God created the conditions for life to assemble through random occurrences? Alistar mcGrath, Dawkins biggest critic, a Christian and a molecular biologist sees no conflict between evolution and the Bible. Why do you?

Who says I do? The conflict I have is with the teaching of evolution as a totally proven theory. The scientific community can be just as blind as anyone else when their beliefs are challenged, and they need to acknowledge that the answers are not as cut and dried as they are being presented. But that is actually another discussion, and we can take it up again later.

Always when private people discover stuff their academic background researching the stuff in question always pops up. Like Einstein for example. But recently it's completely unheard of. Beside that pastor in the Australian outback who's discovered a shit load of stars, who is there? And his discoveries dropped off to near zero after Hubble was launched.

The interesting thing about the new discoveries being made by amateurs is that they far out pace those of the professionals. There was a comment in one of the TED videos I watched (btw, thanks so much for that link, I love it) about a part time comet hunter that downloads data from the Hubble and uses it to look for comets. He has discovered 150 comets this way, more than people who have sophisticated search programs and are actually paid to do this.

The fact is that a person without formal education is just as capable, and sometimes more likely, to make a discovery because he does not have to justify his ideas to someone else.

[TomOfSweden]

Nope, but the fact that he argues for the existence of miracles in one breath, and then against the few instances that we have of them being recorded from history is a bit wishy washy, imo.

I think he argues against our understanding of whether it is miracles or not. A bit like, even if a miracle would shoot up and bite us in the ass, we might not register it as such. In the same way. If we see something mundane but in a way we're not prepared for we might register it falsely as a miracle.

I do believe in scientific theories, I just do not know whose argument to believe. My point is that people who do have the training to understand these supposed arguments are making these counter claims. Why do their opponents then try to make the argument that I cannot understand because I do not have the training to comprehend the argument. I know from experience that I can learn the basics of even complex math rather quickly. someone trying to tell me their is no way I can understand is actually telling me that he is not as sure of his arguments as he claims, or that he does not want to take the time to make me understand.

What I said was that I didn't understand it. I wasn't talking about you. But I do very strongly doubt that without serious studies, it's possible to understand.

I am watching the reformation of theories about how solar systems form based on new findings from the Hubble. We are learning that most of the theories we had based on looking at our system are wrong, and that it is getting a little harder to explain why this system formed the way it did. Scientist hoped to find Super Jupiters, but we have been stumbling over them at such an astounding rate that we are learning that the ideas we had are wrong. I am not saying that the solar system we live in is inexplicable, just a bit more unlikely then we thought.

If we were wrong about that, what else can we be wrong about?

um...yeah. and we still have the Banach Tarski paradox to deal with. I think you're mixing up positive and negative attributes to arguments. The more uncertaintly you insert to a premise means just that. It doesn't add to any specific theory no matter how wide it's domain is.

Sure, the "god theory" has the handy attribute of fitting into any situation due to it's nature. It is supremely intelligent, has no mass, gives no energy readings, is invisible and at the same time all powerful. Me personally, I'd say that if that doesn't make you laugh, then I don't know what's wrong with you. As far as a scientific theory is concerned it's a bit like walking around with a bazooka and calling it "a key that fits any door".

So, the fact remains that there is still no reason to insert an omnipotent, or even mildly powerful ethereal being anywhere in any theory today. So you inserting doubt in now defunct old popular scientific theories doesn't really do much for Christianity I'm afraid. If it does to you, then that is proof that you're just seeing things you want to see.

The plain fact is that the more uncertainty you insert the harder it is for anybody to make a leap of faith. If you do anyway then .... well ... I'll refrain from making insults here.

Who says I do? The conflict I have is with the teaching of evolution as a totally proven theory. The scientific community can be just as blind as anyone else when their beliefs are challenged, and they need to acknowledge that the answers are not as cut and dried as they are being presented. But that is actually another discussion, and we can take it up again later.

No it isn't as blind as anyone else when their beliefs are challenged. That's what so nice about science. It is very important that scientists do come up with wonky theories which break from today's paradigm. But they are scientists. They are systematic and above all make sure they don't break any of the things we can prove. I'd say that you need to be a part of the scientific community to make sure you aren't forgetting any previous critical research. If nothing else you need to be attached to a university just to have access to their databases to be able to search earlier research. It's extremely valuable to know that nobody before you took your idea, ran with it and failed.

There is more than just knowing or not knowing. There are known unknowns and there are things that you may not know that you don't know.

The interesting thing about the new discoveries being made by amateurs is that they far out pace those of the professionals. There was a comment in one of the TED videos I watched (btw, thanks so much for that link, I love it) about a part time comet hunter that downloads data from the Hubble and uses it to look for comets. He has discovered 150 comets this way, more than people who have sophisticated search programs and are actually paid to do this.

The fact is that a person without formal education is just as capable, and sometimes more likely, to make a discovery because he does not have to justify his ideas to someone else.

But without the scientific work that tells him what to look for he wouldn't have a clue. The discovery isn't the comets, but the method on how to find it. It's all about how you look at it.