|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Does God exist?
Hi ppl,
what do u think does god exist?
I think God should exist. I dont believe that any creation is possible whithout creator.
Whats ur opinion?Though its a religious qsn but my aim is to khow the thought of people in this issue who like science. Expecting some great answers.
Last edited by Physicist on Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:56 am; edited 4 times in total
what do u think does god exist?
I think God should exist. I dont believe that any creation is possible whithout creator.
Whats ur opinion?Though its a religious qsn but my aim is to khow the thought of people in this issue who like science. Expecting some great answers.
Last edited by Physicist on Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:56 am; edited 4 times in total
| Physicist wrote: |
| Hi ppl,
what do u think does god exist? I think God should exist. I dont believe that any creation is possible whithout creator. Whats ur opinion?Expecting some great answers. |
No I don't think God exists. Neither do I think that a creator is necessary for things to exist. Evolution creates a vast diversity of species without the need for any creator, indeed without the need for any predetermined plan or rules at all.
Chris.
Nope... no god for me - it's all down to science and we've evolved (back to good old Darwin again) to adapt to the environment! 
This is a religious question, this is a science forum.
God it not important in science,in science it doesn't madder if god exists or not, what madders is the evidence.
God it not important in science,in science it doesn't madder if god exists or not, what madders is the evidence.
Cons,
u told its science forum. But not religious forum.
Yes, but in religious forum all kinds of people visit.But here people r different.So need to khow that people who like science what do they think about it.Bye
u told its science forum. But not religious forum.
Yes, but in religious forum all kinds of people visit.But here people r different.So need to khow that people who like science what do they think about it.Bye
I'm reasonably sure that anyone interested in whether god exists or not will frequent both forums, as I do.
And no, god is the polar opposite of logic.
Religion is a interesting social phenomenon, in that it has held on to people's minds for so long anfter it has been shown to be illogical and very much a fantasy.
And no, god is the polar opposite of logic.
Religion is a interesting social phenomenon, in that it has held on to people's minds for so long anfter it has been shown to be illogical and very much a fantasy.
Religion is just a means for controlling the masses. Just look to the spanish inquisition, the crusades etc.
Mass murder all in the name of god.
Mass murder all in the name of god.
I don't think god is the answer to any scientific problem. We will always try to find another explanation and step by step we are coming closer to our goal. Well, actually not really - the answer of one question usually gives us at least two new questions 
I still like the idea of something - or someone - watching us and caring about us and about what we are doing. But I don't know if I really believe in god.
I still like the idea of something - or someone - watching us and caring about us and about what we are doing. But I don't know if I really believe in god.
| Teezgaff wrote: |
| Religion is just a means for controlling the masses. Just look to the spanish inquisition, the crusades etc.
Mass murder all in the name of god. |
There's an interesting section about the Spanish Inquisition in The Brothers Karamazov, if you care to read it, that may lead you to alter your opinion, at least slightly to this matter. It essentially states that religion is and has been used to control the masses, that was not necessarily the fault of the religion. Just as science or any other system/set of beliefs can restrict, values and morays control how a society runs. You (presumably) don't kill because you don't think it moral to kill, your morals therefore control, or exert influence over your decisions. To follow that train of logic (or fallacies if you don't like what I'm saying), it is thought itself that controls us, and the manipulation of that thought through communication. Should we therefore ban communication? Or possibly thought itself...
No I don't think God exists. Neither do I think that a creator is necessary for things to exist. Evolution creates a vast diversity of species without the need for any creator, indeed without the need for any predetermined plan or rules at all.
Chris.[/quote]
"Evolution creates a vast diversity of species...". How does evolution create? Is evolution the creator? If man can create such complex things as the computer, genetic markers, maping the gnome. Yet not completely understand the makeup of the cell or atom. How much more difficult is it to assume that something came from nothing.
With evolution you have to decide what form of evolution you believe in, Micro or Macro Evolution. Micro evolution does exist and is proven in both science and the Bible. Macro evolution does not exist, and cannot be proven or recreated. In Micro evolution things do change in order to adapt over a period of time. With macro evolution you are saying differenct species come from other species. I am not, nor have I ever been a fish.
Chris.[/quote]
"Evolution creates a vast diversity of species...". How does evolution create? Is evolution the creator? If man can create such complex things as the computer, genetic markers, maping the gnome. Yet not completely understand the makeup of the cell or atom. How much more difficult is it to assume that something came from nothing.
With evolution you have to decide what form of evolution you believe in, Micro or Macro Evolution. Micro evolution does exist and is proven in both science and the Bible. Macro evolution does not exist, and cannot be proven or recreated. In Micro evolution things do change in order to adapt over a period of time. With macro evolution you are saying differenct species come from other species. I am not, nor have I ever been a fish.
| rkgruver wrote: |
| Is evolution the creator? |
No, it's the mechanism for speciation.
| rkgruver wrote: |
| "Evolution creates a vast diversity of species...". How does evolution create? |
The same way man created the computer and mapped the genome:
| rkgruver wrote: |
| If man can create such complex things as the computer, genetic markers, maping the gnome. |
So, one day Alan Turing or Charles Babbage got up and turned out a dual-core Pentium chip, right?
Of course not. First, crude mechanical calculators were developed, then programmible mechanical calculators, then electronics were introduced, and binary logic and arithmetic, then silicon chips, etc. etc. etc.
Seems a little disingenious to offer these things that have so clearly evolved as evidence against evolution.
The map of the genome evolved too, bit by bit, as people filled in blanks and corrected errors - only little bits worked on at a time. These thing don't just pop into being. They evolve.
| rkgruver wrote: |
| Yet not completely understand the makeup of the cell or atom. |
There are two problems with this "logic".
First: why does the fact that we don't understand the atom or the cell mean that they're more complex than the computer? Maybe the atom and the cell are much, much simpler. So why do we understand a computer so well, while we don't completely grasp the atom or the cell? Because we designed the computer, but we didn't design either the atom or the cell.
Second: why does complexity rule out evolution? Evolution has been going on for millions of years. That's a lot of time to introduce complexity. In fact, naturally evolved organisms should be MORE complex than artificially evolved mechanisms - like the computer. Why? Because things that evolved atificially have had a human to guide the evolution, meaning fewer dead-ends, and less vestigal components in the design that serve no purpose any longer. Naturally evolved organisms would be more likely to have vestigal components (like tail bones). Of course, even ignoring vestigal components, keep in mind that organisms on Earth have been evolving for over 3.5 billion years. Computers have been evolving for 200-2000 years (depending on your measure). Wanna bet that a computer from 3.5 billion years in the future will be more complex than a human body?
| rkgruver wrote: |
| How much more difficult is it to assume that something came from nothing. |
Very. Nothing that we have witnessed in the entire known universe comes from nothing. Even in the darkest corners of our most esoteric scientific theories, nothing comes from nothing. To believe that something can just be created out of nothing contradicts all human knowledge.
On the other hand, we observe evolution in a plethora of forms daily. We even witness extremely complicated devices (computer chips) being artificially evolved via manufacturing processes from base materials (sand - for the silicon).
Thus gradual evolution is infinitely more believable than spontaneous creation.
| rkgruver wrote: |
| With evolution you have to decide what form of evolution you believe in, Micro or Macro Evolution. |
No, you don't. They are not contradictory. You can believe both are true, or neither.
| rkgruver wrote: |
| Micro evolution does exist and is proven in both science and the Bible. |
1.) Where in the bible is microevolution "proven"?
2.) There was at least one case of macroevolution in the bible. Right at the beginning, actually.
| rkgruver wrote: |
| Macro evolution does not exist, and cannot be proven or recreated. |
Absolutely false. It can be both proven an recreated. That is why it is a scientific theory.
| rkgruver wrote: |
| In Micro evolution things do change in order to adapt over a period of time. With macro evolution you are saying differenct species come from other species. I am not, nor have I ever been a fish. |
You honestly do not understand what you are talking about. You can't expect to offer a serious, intelligent critique of the theory of evolution when you don't even have a correct layperson's understanding of it. Learn about evolution. You can't say it's wrong until you at least understand it.
And no, before you argue, you don't understand it at all. -> "I am not, nor have I ever been a fish" <- This is proof of how clueless you are as far as the theory of evolution goes. No part of that statement has anything to do with micro or macroevolution. If you don't understand why not, that should be your first sign that you need to do some more reading.
I guess we are missing the point here. I don't know if God exists but this I know - God is not material. Evolution is about formation and change in the bodies of living beings. That can go on, I suppose, without a God.
But is life concerned just about bodies? Consciousness, or the feeling that 'I exist' and 'I am living' - can that exist without a body? This is the question that science needs to answer before it can talk about God. Once that question is answered, it wouldn't be too difficult to settle the questions about God one way or the other.
But is life concerned just about bodies? Consciousness, or the feeling that 'I exist' and 'I am living' - can that exist without a body? This is the question that science needs to answer before it can talk about God. Once that question is answered, it wouldn't be too difficult to settle the questions about God one way or the other.
Religion is built on believe and science is build on evidence. They both should never be compared.
Do god exist maybe we will see when we die. If god create us he maybe he start big bang or mixed all pieces for life and started the first life in a sump. But evolution do still exist with lot of evidence
Do god exist maybe we will see when we die. If god create us he maybe he start big bang or mixed all pieces for life and started the first life in a sump. But evolution do still exist with lot of evidence
Personally God exists for me. Honestly even though i am a science student.. somethings still cannot be explained by science. And the things that God does is beyond our comprehension.^^
| SyncM wrote: |
| Religion is built on believe and science is build on evidence. They both should never be compared. |
| Webster's wrote: |
| a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith |
Science and religion can not be compared and science is not a religion.
Science is about evidence, not belief, the belief of the scientist is not a factor, religion is about belief.
In religion, you believe in god weather there is evidence for god or not, in science you must prove god exists using the scientific method. In science you come up a theory based on observations, a theory that has testable predictions, you then test those predictions and if the predictions are correct you then publish it for pear revue, other scientists then do those tests.
Science is about evidence, not belief, the belief of the scientist is not a factor, religion is about belief.
In religion, you believe in god weather there is evidence for god or not, in science you must prove god exists using the scientific method. In science you come up a theory based on observations, a theory that has testable predictions, you then test those predictions and if the predictions are correct you then publish it for pear revue, other scientists then do those tests.
| Montressor wrote: | ||||
|
If you want to compare religion and science, you should seriously get a better definition of both than you're going to get from Websters. I mean, seriously. Come on. Do you really think you can hold a serious conversation about America when all you know about it is "North American republic containing 50 states - 48 conterminous states in North America plus Alaska in northwest North America and the Hawaiian Islands in the Pacific Ocean; achieved independence in 1776 [syn: United States, United States of America, America, US, U.S., USA, U.S.A.]"? Use a dictionary to find the definition for words that you don't know the meaning of - as it is intended to be used - don't use it as the springboard for an in-depth discussion on a topic.
A universal definition of religion is a slippery beast, but a workable generalization is to say that religion attempts to explain the universe - completely, or just some subset of it - by means of supernatural and/or mystical means.
That definition shows that science is not, and cannot ever be, a religion. Even if one were to dogmatically subscribe to scientific knowledge as the only acceptible means of describing the universe, it still wouldn't be a religion. It wouldn't be particularly open-minded, and it would be against the spirit of science, but it still wouldn't be a religion. Not every belief or system of beliefs is a religion.
The non-mystical and non-supernatural definition of science also means that, as long as "God" is supernaturally and/or mystically defined, whether or not it exists can never be considered a scientific question. This conversation doesn't even belong in a science forum. It must be the "nature" part of the forum that allows it to slip in somehow.
| Indi wrote: |
| A universal definition of religion is a slippery beast, but a workable generalization is to say that religion attempts to explain the universe - completely, or just some subset of it - by means of supernatural and/or mystical means. |
Care to define "supernatural and/or mystical means"?
And as to you misplaced analogy... is there anything that Webster's says about America that isn't true? It is a simplistic definition, but one that is certainly factual...
| Montressor wrote: | ||
Care to define "supernatural and/or mystical means"? |
Means that are supernatural and/or mystical.
Do you mean you want me to define supernatural? Or mystical?
| Montressor wrote: |
| And as to you misplaced analogy... is there anything that Webster's says about America that isn't true? It is a simplistic definition, but one that is certainly factual... |
It wasn't misplaced; the fact that it was simple was precisely the point of the analogy. Nothing about the definition of religion is wrong either, it's just so simplistic that it's lacking any functional use.
Does the definition of America even mention that it's a (semi-)democratic republic? No? Then it's useless for comparing America to other countries politically. Does the definition of America mention that it's the world's biggest economic power, and by how much? No? Then it's useless for comparing America to other countries economically. In fact, the only thing that dictionary definition mentions is that it has 50 states, and that it became independent in 1776. So if you had a dirt poor country that had a communist dictatorship as a government... but that happened to have 50 states and gained independence in 1776... by that dictionary definition you would conclude that the two countries are similar. Obviously that's idiotic. Yet that's precisely what you've done with religion and science.
You took a dictionary definition that spoke of just one tiny aspect of religion, and said "well, science is a system of beliefs held to with faith sometimes, too, so they must be the same thing." You can't seriously defend that as valid logic. Can you? i mean, seriously, take a step back and think about it. Do you really think that's a valid line of reasoning?
| Indi wrote: | ||||
Means that are supernatural and/or mystical. Do you mean you want me to define supernatural? Or mystical? |
What else would that question mean?
| Indi wrote: |
|
You took a dictionary definition that spoke of just one tiny aspect of religion, and said "well, science is a system of beliefs held to with faith sometimes, too, so they must be the same thing." You can't seriously defend that as valid logic. Can you? i mean, seriously, take a step back and think about it. Do you really think that's a valid line of reasoning? |
I never claimed that science and religion are "the same thing", I claimed that in the sense that both science and religion have systems of belief and "faith", they are similar. I did not advocate that science is in every sense a religion and as such all science forum posts should be reviewed in a religious light, but that since both are belief systems and sometimes those beliefs appear to contradict, those contradictions need to be discussed in both a scientific light and a philosophical/metaphysical/religious light.
Your fundamentalist response to the claim that science and religion share some of the same similarities only serves to further alienate both sides from each other, just as a religious fanatic's adamant rejection of all things science would
| Quote: |
| I claimed that in the sense that both science and religion have systems of belief and "faith", they are similar. |
Science dose not require faith, faith in science is bad, it leads to pseudoscience. Every thing in science is falsifiable, if you have faith in something it means that you will believe it regardless of the evidence, which means its not falsifiable. In science, if the evidence says no, than it is false, if the evidence says yes, than it is true, if the evidence says its true bit then later new evidence says false than it is false and always has been, it was the scientists that were wrong, if the evidence says false then later says true, then it is true and always has been, it was the scientists that were wrong.
In faith, if something is proven wrong, it makes no deference cause it is believed by faith thus faith can not work in science.
Faith is always being challenged, and needs to be for it to be strong. I was saying that the scientific community has "faith" in... science itself! With the "gods" of truth and knowledge etc...
Tell me, do you fully understand the force called gravity? If not, then you believe in something that is scientifically proven, but is not fully understood by anybody. You hold faith in the science proving that gravity exists, and predicting the actions and effects of gravity, but you cannot comprehend what the force actually is itself and why it is. (If you happen to fully understand everything to know about gravity insert any other scientific natural process in the place of gravity). That's where you get into the real faith of science the pseudoscience and semi-scientific theories (like string theory) that aren't accepted yet, but are all the same, the backbone of the accepted theories.
Tell me, do you fully understand the force called gravity? If not, then you believe in something that is scientifically proven, but is not fully understood by anybody. You hold faith in the science proving that gravity exists, and predicting the actions and effects of gravity, but you cannot comprehend what the force actually is itself and why it is. (If you happen to fully understand everything to know about gravity insert any other scientific natural process in the place of gravity). That's where you get into the real faith of science the pseudoscience and semi-scientific theories (like string theory) that aren't accepted yet, but are all the same, the backbone of the accepted theories.
There s no faith in it though, its the evidence.
Its like a trail. To convict you need evidence and we all know there has been false convictions so we know a convicted criminals can still be innocent.
Science has proven itself by producing theory's that lead to real world things. The scientific proses has proven itself, it has found the most accurate answers.
Theres no faith in it.
Its like a trail. To convict you need evidence and we all know there has been false convictions so we know a convicted criminals can still be innocent.
Science has proven itself by producing theory's that lead to real world things. The scientific proses has proven itself, it has found the most accurate answers.
Theres no faith in it.
There most certainly is faith. Not a "supernatural" faith, but a faith in the physical world that is in itself somewhat supernatural. Evidence is the testing of that "faith". The more your faith is tested, the stronger it is. You believe in gravity (as do I), because of our repeated testing of it. I'm not saying that not believing in gravity makes it nonexistent, but that you believe (and rightly so) in something that you do not, and can not comprehend. It exists, yes, but you don't know why it exists.
| Montressor wrote: | ||||||
What else would that question mean? |
That you don't know the meaning of "and/or" or "means", or what the phrase means when you arrange those words in that context.
Supernatural refers to forces and phenomena which are not observable in nature, and therefore beyond verifiable measurement. [Wikipedia] Also: of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal. [dictionary.com]
Mystical means having a spiritual reality or import not apparent to the intelligence or senses, or relating to, or stemming from, direct communion with ultimate reality (or God). [American Heritage Dictionary].
Any other questions?
| Montressor wrote: | ||
I never claimed that science and religion are "the same thing", I claimed that in the sense that both science and religion have systems of belief and "faith", they are similar. |
My apologies. Replace "the same thing" with "similar" in everything i wrote.
It changes nothing. Your logic is still invalid. Your conclusion is still false.
| Montressor wrote: |
| I did not advocate that science is in every sense a religion and as such all science forum posts should be reviewed in a religious light, but that since both are belief systems and sometimes those beliefs appear to contradict, those contradictions need to be discussed in both a scientific light and a philosophical/metaphysical/religious light. |
That is not what you said. To quote you: "Science is in that sense a religion. The system of beliefs of science are rigidly upheld by the "faith" of its followers."
Science "in that sense" is not a religion. It is simply a system of beliefs. It does not require faith, and, in fact, faith is frowned upon. The system of beliefs that make up science are most certainly not rigidly upheld by faith. They are continuously tested and challenged, every day.
Thus, science is not a religion.
Just because some people "worship" science - in the sense that they believe it either has or can supply all the answers, and is beyond question - that does not mean that scientific beliefs are "rigidly upheld" by the fanaticism of that group. In fact, those kinds of people are not considered scientists at all.
And of course, it still has nothing to do with the supernatural or the mystical, so it still doesn't fit the definition of a religion.
| Montressor wrote: |
| Your fundamentalist response to the claim that science and religion share some of the same similarities only serves to further alienate both sides from each other, just as a religious fanatic's adamant rejection of all things science would |
"Fundamentalist"? Because i showed you you were wrong? Give me a break.
Science is very clearly and very rigidly defined. There is an entire field of thought devoted to analyzing and improving the definition of science. That makes it very easy to determine what is, and what is not science - which is how we are able to define psuedoscience.
Religion is not very clearly defined, but nevertheless, it is possible to get vague generalities that can act as ad hoc definitions. But there is no comprehensive ad hoc definition that you can create that satisfies the requirements of science at the same time. The only way you can possibly swing it is by doing what you're doing - focussing on a very narrow, very limited definition, that doesn't really "define" or "describe" religion at all.
You list one characteristic of religion - just one characteristic - and use that to make a comparison with science... and you think you've made a useful comparison? Come on. Hey, both "science" and "religion" have at least one 'e' and one 'i'. They must be similar!!!
And that's not even pointing out the fact that your comparison is false. Religion requires faith, or you have no religion. Science certainly doesn't require faith. You don't believe in the scientific method? Fine. *shrug* Whatever. You can still use it and it will still work. Your belief is not necessary.
Fair enough, I concede to your militant extremist demands, and admit that you are better at flooding a post with more misinformation and bias than I will ever be able to (yes my heat resistant shields have cracked, and your flaming has finally penetrated). And furthermore state that your amazing use of hypocrisies is astounding. All the same I will end the fight with proper civilities and state that is has been (at least at first) an enlightening debate, and desire to end it here since neither one of us will ever convince the other, or any other person reading this of our position. The inherent biases we have both displayed prove this, and I bid you goodnight.
| Montressor wrote: |
| There most certainly is faith. Not a "supernatural" faith, but a faith in the physical world that is in itself somewhat supernatural. Evidence is the testing of that "faith". The more your faith is tested, the stronger it is. You believe in gravity (as do I), because of our repeated testing of it. I'm not saying that not believing in gravity makes it nonexistent, but that you believe (and rightly so) in something that you do not, and can not comprehend. It exists, yes, but you don't know why it exists. |
No, there is no faith at all, evidence is not the testing of faith. Science is about evidence. Faith is a belief in something with or with out evidence, having faith in something means that even if all the evidence says no, you still believe it. In science if all the evidence says no, than its not true but there is still a chance however slim it might be that it is true. That goes against what faith is, faith means its true what ever the evidence says and there is no chance at it being wrong. Science has been wrong and there are accepted theory's and hypotheses now that will be wrong ion the future. Every thing in science is falsifiable so to have faith in something is not science.
Of cause the irony is God would be the ultimate scientist.......and those scientists who believe in him the least , are probably the most like him 
or god exist, then he's a bastard for letting us suffer, or he's powerless, or blind...
and as i prefer to think, he doesn't exist, and we'll all die someday and nothing will happen, excepts worms are goign to eat your insides
and as i prefer to think, he doesn't exist, and we'll all die someday and nothing will happen, excepts worms are goign to eat your insides
| tumbleweed wrote: |
| Of cause the irony is God would be the ultimate scientist.......and those scientists who believe in him the least , are probably the most like him |
How do you figure?
What about any known definition of God makes him sound like a scientist?
If it were true that God were a scientist, and we are all some big experiment, then God is a lousy scientist, because he's violating many scientific precepts. Real scientists don't interfere with their experiments to make the results what they want.
| Indi wrote: | ||
How do you figure? What about any known definition of God makes him sound like a scientist? If it were true that God were a scientist, and we are all some big experiment, then God is a lousy scientist, because he's violating many scientific precepts. Real scientists don't interfere with their experiments to make the results what they want. |
Someone who has knowledge in one or more sciences.... a scientist
One could say creating the atom bomb was interfering with nature, helping people through gene therapy could be seen as interfering with nature ,taking things in nature and forcing them into things they are not is experimentation, I am sure it happens everyday in labs allover the planet even if its only in the thought process of the person striving toward a goal, it does depend on your point of veiw to what exactly is ethical in nature and what God does thats unethical in nature
So what has God done thats so lousy that the science of mankind has not tried or will not try to emulate ???
| SyncM wrote: |
| Religion is built on believe and science is build on evidence. They both should never be compared.
Do god exist maybe we will see when we die. If god create us he maybe he start big bang or mixed all pieces for life and started the first life in a sump. But evolution do still exist with lot of evidence |
Which goes to one more question. Where does god comes from?
| tumbleweed wrote: |
| Someone who has knowledge in one or more sciences.... a scientist |
Simply knowing about the sciences does not make one a scientist, despite what the dictionary says. i know just about everything there is to know about the aerodynamics, materials and structural engineering, mechanics and control theory required to make a state-of-the-art modern airplane. That doesn't make me a pilot, or even an aircraft mechanic. It just makes me a person who knows a shitload about planes. By analogy, the fact that God knows everything about all sciences does not make him a scientist - it just makes him a thing that knows a shitload about science.
A scientist is someone who applies the scientific method in order to seek out new knowledge. If God is all knowing, then that automatically disqualifies him from being a scientist - he can't be seeking out new knowledge in any way, scientifically or not, if he already knows everything.
| tumbleweed wrote: |
| One could say creating the atom bomb was interfering with nature, helping people through gene therapy could be seen as interfering with nature ,taking things in nature and forcing them into things they are not is experimentation, I am sure it happens everyday in labs allover the planet even if its only in the thought process of the person striving toward a goal, it does depend on your point of veiw to what exactly is ethical in nature and what God does thats unethical in nature
So what has God done thats so lousy that the science of mankind has not tried or will not try to emulate ??? |
1.) Ethics has nothing to do with whether or not you're doing science. It is possible to do very good science with very good ethics, very good science with very bad ethics, very bad science with very good ethics and very bad science with very bad ethics. Science by itself is amoral - which means it's not good, not evil, not nothing. (Human moral responsibility requires that scientists perform scientific research ethically, for obvious and good reasons. But it is possible to perform quality scientific research with very bad ethics. It's just not allowed in modern societies.)
2.) "Interfering with nature" is also amoral, which means it's neither good nor evil. Sometimes interfering with nature is a good thing - such as when you cure a disease - and sometimes it's a bad thing - such as when you make a species extinct by overhunting. Everyone interferes with nature, going all the way back to the first caveman who made a fire to fight off the natural process of freezing to death.
3.) Scientists, however, do not interfere with nature - except within the boundaries of manipulating variables in an experiment. If they did, they wouldn't be good scientists. Scientists observe nature in order to understand it better. Interfering with it would muck up their observations. The only except is within laboratory conditions, where they may interfere with some aspect of a natural process to observe what happens. But that only happens within the controlled boundaries of an experiment. To do it anywhere else would be bad science, or not science at all.
4.) When i said God is a lousy scientist, it had nothing to do with ethics.
5.) Assuming the Earth is a science experiment and God is using us to find something out, God is a lousy scientist because he is violating good experimental principle. He is influencing the results of the experiment every day, even if only by making himself known via prophets and the bible. In other words, his experiment isn't even a single-blind experiment, which makes his experimental design lousy. And, as i said above, scientists don't interfere with nature - especially when they're in the process of observing it - because that would be bad science. The fact that God does interfere also makes him a lousy scientist. (Of course, all this assumes that God making his presence known isn't a necessary component of the experiment - for example, he could be testing us to see how many people blindly follow his teachings with no physical evidence provided.)
6.) And if you don't want to assume that God is not omniscient and he's using as guinea pigs - if you'd rather either see God as all-knowing, or, at the very least, not an unethical monster - then he can't be a scientist at all, because either he's all-knowing (which invalidates being a scientist seeking answers to begin with), or he's not running an experiment (which means there's no evidence that he's a scientist at all).
So, either God's a lousy scientist, or he's not a scientist at all.
Of course, the Judaistic description of God states unquestionably that God is all-knowing (although the actual stories of God contradict that in many cases, or at least bring it into serious question). Since Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and many others all use that definition, God cannot be a scientist.
OMG!
For my, God don't exist!
For my, God don't exist!
God is by-product of our self-consciousness.
A scientist does not need god to make Science, but believing in God does not make a Scientist less right in his scientific work.
For example of a scientist believing in God and explaining it in a book, read "The Secret Melody" from astrophysicist Trinh Xuan Thuan. He is believing in God and explaining that it is not a problem for scientist to do so.
For funny story about scientists trying to demonstrate the existence of God, you should also read Asimov short story about it. I don't remember the name of the short story, but it was like "Stars going off". In a way, it is showing that a scientist can believe but should not try to demonstrate the existence or non-existence of God.
For example of a scientist believing in God and explaining it in a book, read "The Secret Melody" from astrophysicist Trinh Xuan Thuan. He is believing in God and explaining that it is not a problem for scientist to do so.
For funny story about scientists trying to demonstrate the existence of God, you should also read Asimov short story about it. I don't remember the name of the short story, but it was like "Stars going off". In a way, it is showing that a scientist can believe but should not try to demonstrate the existence or non-existence of God.
| tplanchon wrote: |
| A scientist does not need god to make Science, but believing in God does not make a Scientist less right in his scientific work.
For example of a scientist believing in God and explaining it in a book, read "The Secret Melody" from astrophysicist Trinh Xuan Thuan. He is believing in God and explaining that it is not a problem for scientist to do so. |
There's no problem in a scientist believing in God, or unicorns or anything else that has nothing to do with science... provided that that scientist does not let said belief prevent him from doing science properly.
For example, a "scientist" who rejects data because it disagrees with biblical predictions is not a scientist. A "scientist" who ignores what good science is and creates "scientific" hypotheses that include unicorns is not a scientist.
| tplanchon wrote: |
| For funny story about scientists trying to demonstrate the existence of God, you should also read Asimov short story about it. I don't remember the name of the short story, but it was like "Stars going off". In a way, it is showing that a scientist can believe but should not try to demonstrate the existence or non-existence of God. |
Do you mean The nine billion names of God by Arthur C. Clarke? That's not really about scientists trying to demonstrate the existence of God, but it's close, i guess. It does feature stars going out rather prominently when the existence of God is "proven".
Or maybe The last question by Asimov? That one is at least by Asimov, but it doesn't deal with trying to prove the existence of God. Although, it does "prove" the existence of "God" in the end, sorta kinda.
Asimov himself was pretty famously a rather vocal atheist.
I still think God would be scientist Indi regardless of your eloquent (none...exept maybe if )answers.......Put another way........it takes a thief to catch a thief
| tumbleweed wrote: |
| I still think God would be scientist Indi regardless of your eloquent (none...exept maybe if )answers.......Put another way........it takes a thief to catch a thief |
Interesting logic, albeit circular. It compels me to point out that not only is science not searching for (trying to catch) God, it cannot even possibly search for God. Science can only explore the physical universe, so unless God is completely physical and non-transcendant, science can never capture God.
Or to put it another way, if it really does take a thief to catch a thief, and if scientists are thieves, God would not also be a thief.
The only people who claim to be seeking out God are philosophers and religious people. Most relevantly, they live by your philosophy: that in order to understand God, one must try to emulate him as much as possible - or at the very least, attempt to think like him, in the case of philosophers. They would be the thieves you set to catch the master thief, not scientists. Unless they're speaking metaphorically, no scientist will ever tell you that they will bring you to God. And most religious leaders will tell you the same thing.
If you want to find out about God, don't ask a scientist. Ask a cleric.
If you want to find out about nature, don't ask a cleric. Ask a scientist.
even i don't think god exists...........it all comes down to the Theory of Evolution, and nothing more. no creator is needed!!! and by the way, if god did exist, and he was the creator of this world, would you think god will allow the destruction of nature???
i have answered your question in scientific as well as religious point of view!!!
i have answered your question in scientific as well as religious point of view!!!
| Indi wrote: | ||
Interesting logic, albeit circular. It compels me to point out that not only is science not searching for (trying to catch) God, it cannot even possibly search for God. Science can only explore the physical universe, so unless God is completely physical and non-transcendant, science can never capture God. Or to put it another way, if it really does take a thief to catch a thief, and if scientists are thieves, God would not also be a thief. The only people who claim to be seeking out God are philosophers and religious people. Most relevantly, they live by your philosophy: that in order to understand God, one must try to emulate him as much as possible - or at the very least, attempt to think like him, in the case of philosophers. They would be the thieves you set to catch the master thief, not scientists. Unless they're speaking metaphorically, no scientist will ever tell you that they will bring you to God. And most religious leaders will tell you the same thing. If you want to find out about God, don't ask a scientist. Ask a cleric. If you want to find out about nature, don't ask a cleric. Ask a scientist. |
So of cause no scientist ever thinks of intelligent design, or an intelligent designer, and no clerics/vicars/holymen are ever scientists or are involved in practical applications of "collected knowledge" on any subject.....
To say that science can never capture/find God is a bit defeatest especially comming from a person of science
I have to assume you know exactly what God is to be so sure he can not be found , or I have to assume that science is static and no new developments will ever occur........ neither of these seem logical to me
Im am sure one day science will fill in all the gaps and we will have a universe we totally understand.....and when the final piece of the universal jig-saw is put in place regardless of what the final peice is ( God or nature or the flying spagetti monster ) , the person.. (or the person behind the manmade intelligent computer android thingy.... yes people assume with out a second thought that one day man will create living intelligent machines...maybe even biological ones !!!!!!! we can do it but its beyond any other lifeforms ..that are pretty much proved by science (mathamatics).. to exist )...putting the last piece of the puzzle in place will be a scientist
In slowly finding the fundamental laws of the universe ,what caused the big bang, we could be considered looking for God ,even if it is only to disprove his existence through his absence
| tumbleweed wrote: | ||
So of cause no scientist ever thinks of intelligent design, or an intelligent designer, and no clerics/vicars/holymen are ever scientists or are involved in practical applications of "collected knowledge" on any subject..... To say that science can never capture/find God is a bit defeatest especially comming from a person of science |
I'm pretty sure Indi did not say that. The point is that it is not a scientists role to deal with God - although Creationism/ID, insofar as it makes scientific claims, is within the scope of science. Scientists do not regard intelligent design as sensible science, you are correct. If individual scientists do believe in creationism then that is their affair, but the science quoted by the ID lobby is, in my experience, either not science at all, fundamentally flawed or misinterpreted or speculative to the point of fantasy.
As for science capturing God, Indi did not say that science can never do so, although I would probably say that myself. God, by definition, is a supernatural entity and science is concerned with the natural world. Anything supernatural is, by definition, outside the natural world and so outside the remit of science.
| Quote: |
|
I have to assume you know exactly what God is to be so sure he can not be found , or I have to assume that science is static and no new developments will ever occur........ neither of these seem logical to me |
Again you misquote and misinterpret what was actually said.
| Quote: |
|
Im am sure one day science will fill in all the gaps and we will have a universe we totally understand.....and when the final piece of the universal jig-saw is put in place regardless of what the final peice is ( God or nature or the flying spagetti monster ) , the person.. (or the person behind the manmade intelligent computer android thingy.... yes people assume with out a second thought that one day man will create living intelligent machines...maybe even biological ones !!!!!!! we can do it but its beyond any other lifeforms ..that are pretty much proved by science (mathamatics).. to exist )...putting the last piece of the puzzle in place will be a scientist In slowly finding the fundamental laws of the universe ,what caused the big bang, we could be considered looking for God ,even if it is only to disprove his existence through his absence |
Science explains the universe pretty well already. There are some gaps, for sure, but in terms of the history from BB to present the current model seems pretty good.
I'm not sure what you are saying maths proves to exist...if you mean alien life then no it doesn't.
Finally, you cannot disprove God's existence, no matter what, since it is always possible to posit a Deity outside current scientific models.
Chris
| tumbleweed wrote: |
| So of cause no scientist ever thinks of intelligent design, or an intelligent designer, and no clerics/vicars/holymen are ever scientists or are involved in practical applications of "collected knowledge" on any subject..... |
A scientist can believe ID or whatever they want... in their free time. When they're doing their job as scientists, then no. Why? Because ID is not a scientific theory (it fails several requirements).
If a scientist wants to personally believe that ID is truth, or that God exists, or whatever, there's no reason they can't. But the moment they put God in that scientific paper their writing, they're not doing science any more, and they're not being scientists - because God is not and cannot be science.
The situation is similar for a cleric using science. The scientist is free to believe what he wants, but must not use that belief in his work while he's being a scientist. The cleric is free to use science (or any secular knowledge) in anyway he wants to, but he must believe the teachings of his faith... or he's not really being much of a cleric, is he?
It's possible - it's not even hard - to be both a religious fanatic and a die-hard science freak - to be both extremes, just not at the same time when only one or the other is appropriate. Just leave your religion at the door when you're doing scientific work, and don't preach heretical science to the congregation. Piece of cake.
Come on, why is this so hard to grasp? You can be lots of things in your life that aren't necessarily perfectly compatible - all you have to do is not be them at the same time when only one or the other is appropriate. You can be an active member of the furry community and a lawyer at a prestigious law firm at the same time - just don't wear your Armani powersuit to Anthrocon, and don't wear your fursuit to court. You can be a hard-core, freestyling, expletive-spewing, gangsta rapper and a writer of children's books at the same time - just don't freestyle about Simon the Shrew learning his ABC's and don't write a children's book about getting high and ******' up the po-po with your nine.
| tumbleweed wrote: |
| To say that science can never capture/find God is a bit defeatest especially comming from a person of science |
On the contrary, a good understanding of science includes an understanding of its limitations. Science can't solve everything, you know. There are things that science can never investigate. Part of the definition of science is that it's about the physical universe. That means that anything outside of the physical universe can never be investigated by science.
For example:
| tumbleweed wrote: |
| I have to assume you know exactly what God is to be so sure he can not be found , or I have to assume that science is static and no new developments will ever occur........ neither of these seem logical to me |
No. Your assuming is illogical and unnecessary.
i don't need to know exactly what God is, all i need to know is whether or not he/she/it exists in nature. If it does, then science can find God, and given enough time, will (with one small caveat).
HOWEVER. Every major religion's definition of God specifically makes him transcendant. That means God exists outside of nature. Outside of the universe, outside of time, all that stuff. If God is transcendent, then science cannot and never will lead to him. Science just can't do that. Period.
There's just one more little catch, though. If God is not transcendant - if he exists within the universe - but he is omnipotent, then he still can't be described by science. This is because science works by discovering the rules and limitations that define something. We discovered that rainbows have something to do with moisture in the air because they never appear when the air is dry. Now, if God can be anything, do anything... and is everything... then there is no way to narrow him down. If you can't see the edges of a shape, how do you know whether you're looking at a shape or just the background? So in order for science to have a chance at tracking down God, God must be in this universe, and he must be limited somehow.
Most every major religion rules out both possibilities. Hence, God cannot ever be found by science.
| tumbleweed wrote: |
| Im am sure one day science will fill in all the gaps and we will have a universe we totally understand.....and when the final piece of the universal jig-saw is put in place regardless of what the final peice is ( God or nature or the flying spagetti monster ) , the person.. (or the person behind the manmade intelligent computer android thingy.... yes people assume with out a second thought that one day man will create living intelligent machines...maybe even biological ones !!!!!!! we can do it but its beyond any other lifeforms ..that are pretty much proved by science (mathamatics).. to exist )...putting the last piece of the puzzle in place will be a scientist |
No. Doesn't work that way.
Suppose you lived in a room with no doors and windows. Given enough time and enough exploring, you would eventually get to know every nook and cranny of that room. You may even come to know what the walls are made up, and whether they are hollow or not. But you're never going to know the name of your next door neighbour... unless you break out of the wall of your room (leave the universe), or your neighbour breaks in (God enters the universe and becomes non-transcendent).
| tumbleweed wrote: |
| In slowly finding the fundamental laws of the universe ,what caused the big bang, we could be considered looking for God ,even if it is only to disprove his existence through his absence |
Doesn't work that way either.
Suppose that we find out precisely how the big bang happened, where the original material came from and what set it off - literally everything there is to know - and there's no sign of God. Have we disproven his existence? No. All a believer would have to do is say that he's hiding himself, and he created false evidence to fool unbelievers.
SHOCK!
That's what believers are saying already! O.O
Amazing isn't it?
They said the world was 6,000 years old, then they found evidence that the Earth was four and a half billions of years old. The believers said nay, it's still 6,000 years old - God simply planted false evidence like fossils to test us. Then they found evidence that the universe was even older still - thirteen billion and change - and the believers still say nay. God is just fooling us to test us.
What's going to change in the future? This pattern has remained unchanged since the dawn of recorded history. Why do you think that somewhere around the bend there is that magical artifact of evidence that even the firmest believers can't deny? For the age of the Earth they deny geological, radiological, solar condensation characteristics, terrestrial and lunar rotational characteristics, helioseismic data, cosmochemistry AND MORE! But you think that there's that one wild card just waiting to be the final straw that ends the debate? Keep dreaming.
Believers will continue to believe regardless of any scientific advances and evidence. That's the way it's always been. It is impossible to prove that God does not exist, but science has been "looking" for thousands of years and God hasn't been found. Do you see any signs of waning belief? Of course not.
It does not happen that way is not a good scientific answer to me a none scientist
Basically you (both) state there is no God... and science could never find him if he did indeed exist
Basically I state that if there IS (maybe who knows apart from you two)
that if God exists a scientist will be the person that finds him
If you assume God exists , and that God is transendental ,outside of "nature" ,then you could assume we are inside of God , and that all nature could be contained in God itself
Science cant solve everything ?...are you super naturally sure ?
Basically you (both) state there is no God... and science could never find him if he did indeed exist
Basically I state that if there IS (maybe who knows apart from you two)
that if God exists a scientist will be the person that finds him
If you assume God exists , and that God is transendental ,outside of "nature" ,then you could assume we are inside of God , and that all nature could be contained in God itself
Science cant solve everything ?...are you super naturally sure ?
I think god exists, where else would everything come from? science. probally, but more things havent been explained in the world than those explained.
SOME OF THE DOORS TO GOD'S EXISTENCE
The overwhelming of majority of humankind have believed in the existence of God from the very beginning
Some of the ‘doors’ to God’s existence
Contingent nature of the creation
Finite nature of things
Life
Orderliness in creation
Artistry in creation
Finality in creation
Mercy and providence
Mutual helping in the universe
Cleanliness in the universe
Countenances
Divine teaching and directing
The spirit and the conscience
Man’s innate dispositions and history of mankind
Human intuition
Consensus
The Holy Qur’an and other Scriptures
The prophets
http://www.kemalyavuz.frih.net/books/belief.htm
very nice book about god's existence.
The overwhelming of majority of humankind have believed in the existence of God from the very beginning
Some of the ‘doors’ to God’s existence
Contingent nature of the creation
Finite nature of things
Life
Orderliness in creation
Artistry in creation
Finality in creation
Mercy and providence
Mutual helping in the universe
Cleanliness in the universe
Countenances
Divine teaching and directing
The spirit and the conscience
Man’s innate dispositions and history of mankind
Human intuition
Consensus
The Holy Qur’an and other Scriptures
The prophets
http://www.kemalyavuz.frih.net/books/belief.htm
very nice book about god's existence.
| palavra wrote: |
|
The overwhelming of majority of humankind have believed in the existence of God from the very beginning. |
Appeal to popularity fallacy. Just cause allot of people believe dose not make it so.
2000 years ago the vast majority of people believed in many gods.
| tumbleweed wrote: |
| It does not happen that way is not a good scientific answer to me a none scientist |
So you don't understand how science works, but you don't want to take the word of someone who does?
| tumbleweed wrote: |
| Basically you (both) state there is no God... and science could never find him if he did indeed exist |
i never stated there is no God in that post except in the hypothetical example to show that it's impossible to prove there is no God.
Your comprehension skills need exercise, or perhaps you did not read closely enough. i offered 4 possibilites:
1.) God exists but is trancendental: If this is so, science cannot find him, because science can not deal with the transcendental.
2.) God exists and is in this universe, but omnipotent: If this is so, science cannot find him, because science cannot define that which has no definable limits.
3.) God exists and is in this universe, and he is not omnipotent: If this is so, science can find God someday.
4.) God does not exist: If this is so, then obviously science will never find him. However, believers will still believe that he exists, because science can never prove that he doesn't.
i did not say any of those was "correct", but i did point out that the vast majority of theists believe that God is transcendental and/or omnipotent. If you're a Christian, a Muslim or a Hindu, then that is what you believe - and Christians, Muslims and Hindus (Brahman/Ishvara) make up about 2/3 of the planet and just under 80% of all religious people.
In other words, according to the definition of God given by virtually everyone that believes in a God, and according to the definition of science, God cannot be found by science. And that's all there is to it.
| tumbleweed wrote: |
| Basically I state that if there IS (maybe who knows apart from you two)
that if God exists a scientist will be the person that finds him |
IF God exists...
And IF he can possibly be "found" (that is, he's non-transcendant)...
And IF his characteristics allow him to be observed and defined in scientific terms...
... then yes, a scientist will probably be the one that finds him first.
BUT, a solid 95% of the world says that will not be the case, because either they say there is no God, or they define God in a way that science cannot describe.
| tumbleweed wrote: |
| If you assume God exists , and that God is transendental ,outside of "nature" ,then you could assume we are inside of God , and that all nature could be contained in God itself |
You can assume whatever you want. But if God does not exist within the universe, and if he is not bounded somehow, then science cannot find him.
| tumbleweed wrote: |
| Science cant solve everything ?...are you super naturally sure ? |
Your first question is non-sensical. Your second question is not even grammatical.
If the physical-observable universe is everything there is, then yes, science can answer every question. But if there are planes of existence that are outside of the physical-observable universe, then no, science can't answer every question. i don't know whether or not the physical-observable universe is all there is - no one does. So no one can answer your first question.
Perhaps someday when our knowledge evolves enough, we will create a new field of study based on scientific ideals that can explore those transcendant realms, if any. We've done something like that already. We've created several fields of study to investigate non-physical aspects of our existence using methods that are based on the scientific method. Some even call themselves science, but that's a bit of a stretch in most cases.
As for the second question, the adjective "supernaturally" makes no sense there, so i don't know what you think you mean by asking if i'm "supernaturally" sure.
| Indi wrote: |
|
Perhaps someday when our knowledge evolves enough, we will create a new field of study based on scientific ideals that can explore those transcendant realms, if any. We've done something like that already. We've created several fields of study to investigate non-physical aspects of our existence using methods that are based on the scientific method. Some even call themselves science, but that's a bit of a stretch in most cases. |
I see we can agree then
| tumbleweed wrote: | ||
I see we can agree then |
*blink*
On what?
| Indi wrote: | ||||
*blink* On what? |
That one day mankind could possibly find God(if he indeed exists) ,or parralel universes or some strange dimension containing intelligent life forms based on radiation or electromagnetism or treacle toffee or all those strangely lost left socks( I am guessing this is a universal phenomenon) ,through science
No matter what you guys think about the exsitence of the god, you believe it exsits in the deepest part of your heart. When you can not find out a solution to a problem your god comes live.
| tumbleweed wrote: | ||||||
That one day mankind could possibly find God(if he indeed exists) ,or parralel universes or some strange dimension containing intelligent life forms based on radiation or electromagnetism or treacle toffee or all those strangely lost left socks( I am guessing this is a universal phenomenon) ,through science |
That is not what i said. In fact, that's the opposite of what i said.
| The Conspirator wrote: | ||
Appeal to popularity fallacy. Just cause allot of people believe dose not make it so. 2000 years ago the vast majority of people believed in many gods. |
it is one of the countless proof.
when you gather lots of thin strings, it will be a very strong rope.
| palavra wrote: | ||||
it is one of the countless proof. when you gather lots of thin strings, it will be a very strong rope. |
Huh? Are you saying many believers is evidence or proof? Cause it isn't. There are allot of common beliefs that are false.
Or are you saying that it makes it harder for believers to see the truth?
| Indi wrote: | ||||||||
That is not what i said. In fact, that's the opposite of what i said. |
Ok.......If you say so
| The Conspirator wrote: | ||||||
Huh? Are you saying many believers is evidence or proof? Cause it isn't. There are allot of common beliefs that are false. Or are you saying that it makes it harder for believers to see the truth? |
i think he was saying that a crapload of bad evidence = good evidence.
Which, of course, is not true.
I think he meant (allthough I might very well be wrong) that since a lot of people beleave in god(s) it´s likely there´s some truth behind it.
After all it´s quite odd that so many people beleave so much in something if theres no reason it would be true;)
I´m an atheist, but still I´m very amazed to see how a mayority beleaves in God
After all it´s quite odd that so many people beleave so much in something if theres no reason it would be true;)
I´m an atheist, but still I´m very amazed to see how a mayority beleaves in God
| arkebuzer wrote: |
| I think he meant (allthough I might very well be wrong) that since a lot of people beleave in god(s) it´s likely there´s some truth behind it.
After all it´s quite odd that so many people beleave so much in something if theres no reason it would be true;) |
This is known as the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. It is easy to demonstrate why this argument is flawed, simply consider historical examples where popular belief was later shown to be incorrect...there are many such examples.
Regards
Chris
I would like to hear a scientific view on the "kangaroo of love".
I believe in it. The "kangaroo of love" often speak to me even though I cannot see it. Maybe I will write a book about it soon.
Don't you just think the ones that believes in the "Bear of niceness" is sooo stupid? I think they will never be alowed to enter the "pouch of warmth"
I believe in it. The "kangaroo of love" often speak to me even though I cannot see it. Maybe I will write a book about it soon.
Don't you just think the ones that believes in the "Bear of niceness" is sooo stupid? I think they will never be alowed to enter the "pouch of warmth"
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
This is known as the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. It is easy to demonstrate why this argument is flawed, simply consider historical examples where popular belief was later shown to be incorrect...there are many such examples. |
I don’t think belief in God would come under your described phenomenon. It explains such things as the belief in toads causing warts but the belief in God is a very universal phenomenon more comparable to hunger than argumentum ad populum.
Man has always sought his creator and most religions are based on this God wanting his creations to love and seek him out. As far as the incomprehensible goes, this is good sturdy proof.
Just because allot of people believe something doesn't make it true. Yes people through out the ages have believed in gods of some sorts but that is not evidence for the existence of any God or gods, through out most of history people believed the earth was the center of the universe, we know that not to be true now. It is fallacious to use a common belief no matter how common it is to as evidence for something.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| Just because allot of people believe something doesn't make it true. |
ok , you are right! sometimes lots of people believe to a false idea.
but i mean from the beginning of the human history ,lots of people some of them the most reliable people like prophets,saints,(me
)
say continuously "there is only one god "
and this is a proof for unity of god.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
|
I don’t think belief in God would come under your described phenomenon. It explains such things as the belief in toads causing warts but the belief in God is a very universal phenomenon more comparable to hunger than argumentum ad populum. |
The reference was
| Quote: |
| Since a lot of people believe in God(s) it's quite likely there's some truth behind it |
This is argumentum ad populum..plain and simple.
| Quote: |
| Man has always sought his creator and most religions are based on this God wanting his creations to love and seek him out. As far as the incomprehensible goes, this is good sturdy proof. |
Proof ? In what sense ? It is simply another example of argumentum ad populum. In fact it is one of the examples given in the Wikki article on the subject :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
One could make a similar argument showing the opposite case - since millions of people hold religious beliefs which are partly or wholely exlusive (in that adherence to one means exclusion from the rewards of another), if follows that the majority of religious beliefs must be based on invalid doctrine or assumptions.
(This, of course, would also be fallacious but no more so than your argument.)
As for most religions being based on the 2 things you say, I would challenge that. Buddhism and Hinduism do not require the follower to seek out God. Neither do most of the 'pagan' religions including druidism, animism etc. Nor does Confucianism, Jainism, Panthaism, Voodoo, Sufism, Taoism and many early religions which have since disappeared.
Regards
Chris
| palavra wrote: | ||
ok , you are right! sometimes lots of people believe to a false idea. but i mean from the beginning of the human history ,lots of people some of them the most reliable people like prophets,saints,(me )
say continuously "there is only one god " and this is a proof for unity of god. |
Huh?
What makes you think prophets and saints are the most reliable? saints are just famous historical people who's been given the title of saint and prophets are the least reliable.
And the dominance of monotheism only came about in the past 15 hundred years (and polytheism is still going strong), through out the vast majority of human history polytheism was the norm and monotheism was few and far between.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| Huh?
And the dominance of monotheism only came about in the past 15 hundred years (and polytheism is still going strong), through out the vast majority of human history polytheism was the norm and monotheism was few and far between. |
since the beginning of humankind some people say "there is only one god"
how i know : the first human is my relative.(adam =great-great-great grand father
)
but the others (pagan or atheist...) say lots of different things.
i mean the believers say there is a sun
but the others say there is no sun
and their reasons are different
-one says there are clouds
-one says he shuts his eyes
-one says it is night
-one says its name is not sun
-one says it is hallucination
one says he does not care..................
| palavra wrote: | ||
since the beginning of humankind some people say "there is only one god" how i know : the first human is my relative.(adam =great-great-great grand father )
|
Ermm...rather the reverse, as Conspirator correctly pointed out. Monotheism is a relatively modern development. Early religions were either polytheist or animist in nature........
| Quote: |
| i mean the believers say there is a sun |
No...observers say there is a sun
| Quote: |
|
but the others say there is no sun |
Chris
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| Just because allot of people believe something doesn't make it true. Yes people through out the ages have believed in gods of some sorts but that is not evidence for the existence of any God or gods, through out most of history people believed the earth was the center of the universe, we know that not to be true now. It is fallacious to use a common belief no matter how common it is to as evidence for something. |
Sure thoughout history that has been proven over and over. I did not say that the masses are allways right, all I meant was that it´s amazing that soo many people bealeve in it
| arkebuzer wrote: | ||
Sure thoughout history that has been proven over and over. I did not say that the masses are allways right, all I meant was that it´s amazing that soo many people bealeve in it |
You could say it's amazing that so many people believe in astrology. Doesn't mean that astrology has even the least bit of merit.
You can't judge the truth of something by how many people believe in it. And no, you can't even say that the amount of people that believe in it is an interesting data point. The popularity of an idea is completely and absolutely meaningless with regards to the truth - or even believablility or logic - of that idea. The popularity of an idea is due to many factors, and an idea may be popular despite the fact that it is demonstrably false, completely non-sensical and not even internally consistent - it would simply be popular due to one of the other factors, such as historical or social.
So no, it's not amazing that so many people believe in gods. Primitive protohumans probably believed in gods because it was the only thing their limited intellect could devise to explain the nature of the universe, and the idea may still be with us simply because there have never been any reasons for the majority or people to abandon it. There are dozens and dozens of psychological, sociological and anthropological reasons why people would believe in gods. Amazing? Hardly. It's downright pedestrian.
Yes he exists in the meaning of hope and love. he is just a little peace in all of us.
but he doens't exist in the form of a person like we all wish to believe.
he is just a natural force. he is the cause we all got existance. but i don't believe any bibble of religius book.
but he doens't exist in the form of a person like we all wish to believe.
he is just a natural force. he is the cause we all got existance. but i don't believe any bibble of religius book.
sorry i i hurted anybodey with my explanation, but its just my way of thinking
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
[
Chris |
atheists.
i mean believers everytime say there is a god.
but unbelievers have different reasons to claim about their denying.
| palavra wrote: | ||||
atheists. i mean believers everytime say there is a god. but unbelievers have different reasons to claim about their denying. |
So which atheists deny that there is a sun then ? Do tell!
Chris
| Bikerman wrote: | ||||||
So which atheists deny that there is a sun then ? Do tell! Chris |
Maybe he means that atheists deny that there is a "sun of god" ^_^;
i'm sorry. i couldn't help myself. >_<
Religion is a touchy subject but please no one take offence to my thoughts
My Thoughts: God is bullshit..God is just a bogus higher power who was put down in a book to make people beleive in something so they would think their lives werent a waiste of time. No god exists...If there was a god there would be one ultimate religion and no other religions....The Holy Bible contradicts alot of things that are taught by preachers and the whole thing is just straight f*cked up....Honestly...This day in age...Look at it logically.....Somone can raise the dead? heal the hurt? Un-damn the damned? No...Untill I see some dude on the street levitating healing blind people I'm not a beleiver. It would take a great god damn miracle for me to beleive anything other than we live to die and make the best out of your life because you live once. When your dead your dead.....No heaven sorry
My Thoughts: God is bullshit..God is just a bogus higher power who was put down in a book to make people beleive in something so they would think their lives werent a waiste of time. No god exists...If there was a god there would be one ultimate religion and no other religions....The Holy Bible contradicts alot of things that are taught by preachers and the whole thing is just straight f*cked up....Honestly...This day in age...Look at it logically.....Somone can raise the dead? heal the hurt? Un-damn the damned? No...Untill I see some dude on the street levitating healing blind people I'm not a beleiver. It would take a great god damn miracle for me to beleive anything other than we live to die and make the best out of your life because you live once. When your dead your dead.....No heaven sorry
| Indi wrote: | ||||||||
Maybe he means that atheists deny that there is a "sun of god" ^_^; i'm sorry. i couldn't help myself. >_< |
The only reaction appropriate is the normal one....ggrrroooaaaaannnnn
| Bikerman wrote: | ||||||||||
The only reaction appropriate is the normal one....ggrrroooaaaaannnnn |
actually when i tell believer i mean muslims.
but i (we) call all the believers from adam to this time "muslims"
we call the others unbeliever
atheist say there is no god
and
pagans pray for some false god.
agnostic,nihilist,...
all these people have a different reason to be unbeliever
because of this you can not say amount of the unbelievers is more than the amount of the believers
they are not united.they do not support each other.
i tried to say this.
| Quote: |
| i'm sorry. i couldn't help myself. >_<
|
1-no problem
i see i couldn't make myself clear
2-it is good to see you are making a joke
Last edited by palavra on Mon Dec 18, 2006 12:53 pm; edited 2 times in total
We can see te GOD by our heart.
We can study explore our 'deep heart'. After mastering explore our heart, we can feel that God exist or not.
Our deep heart can not lie.
Thanks.
We can study explore our 'deep heart'. After mastering explore our heart, we can feel that God exist or not.
Our deep heart can not lie.
Thanks.
The Fact that there is so much scientific evidence that supports there is a god, It's suprising that many people beleive in evolution. Evolution is taught in schools, but they only teach you one side. They don't teach you the problems with evolution and what makes me pretty angry is Darwin said "Truth is knowing both sides of the equation". I don't remember the quote exactly but it is very similar to that
| coolsmile wrote: |
| The Fact that there is so much scientific evidence that supports there is a god, It's suprising that many people beleive in evolution. Evolution is taught in schools, but they only teach you one side. They don't teach you the problems with evolution and what makes me pretty angry is Darwin said "Truth is knowing both sides of the equation". I don't remember the quote exactly but it is very similar to that |
I'd ask you to name 1, but I've most likely heard it before and destroyed it. So I'll go through them.
We don't know what started the big bang. No we don't, but that doesn't mean God did.
The universe is too complex to have com about naturally. Wrong, many things go from simple to complex, just look at us, we start out as a sperm and an egg cell.
Carbon dating is inaccurate. Wrong, though there is a little give or take in it, has been proven accurate.
Evolution violates the second lay of thermal dynamics! That argument would only work if we lived in a closed environment. Have you seen the sun? If you haven't go outside during the day and look at the bright object in the sky.
Evolution is a theory. A theory is an explanation of facts, not a guess.
I could go on and on and on but I don't feel like wasting my time on this.
There is no evidence of God.
God & The New Physics
Think one should read this book by Paul Davies for some insight into this age old question abouit god
Think one should read this book by Paul Davies for some insight into this age old question abouit god
no he is not real. I dont believe in him one bit! how do some people believe all those unbelievably fake stories? how come bushes dont talk these day? they were supposed to back then in one of them religious stories. 
| coolsmile wrote: |
| The Fact that there is so much scientific evidence that supports there is a god, It's suprising that many people beleive in evolution. Evolution is taught in schools, but they only teach you one side. They don't teach you the problems with evolution and what makes me pretty angry is Darwin said "Truth is knowing both sides of the equation". I don't remember the quote exactly but it is very similar to that |
There is no scientific evidence that supports a god. Not one single shred in all of the many diverse branches of science. Nada. Rien. Zip.
"Evolution" is a broad word that means many different things. If you're talking about the theory of evolution by natural selection, then there are no problems with the theory. None. In fact, that theory is one of the most deeply and heavily researched and studied entities in the history of mankind, along with relativity and quantum mechanics. Nothing has ever been so thoroughly analyzed and studied before.
It is true that there are some aspects of the mechanisms of evolutionary theory that we do not completely understand. But there is no indication at all, whatsoever, that there is any problem with the theory itself. It's rather like having a car engine - you may not know the colour of the wires connected to the sparkplug, or exactly what the piston's metallurgical composition is, but that does not imply that you do not understand how the engine generally works. And it certainly doesn't imply that the engine won't run.
Whoever told you there was scientific evidence of a god is a bald-faced liar.
coolsmile, there can be no god in science, you can not find evidence for God in science. The scientific method is essentially this, observation, theory, prediction, testing and falsifiability. Observation of a phenomena, then a theory to explain the phenomena, then using that theory to make prediction, then testing of those predictions, and the theory no matter how supported by evidence can be falsifiable. In using a "God theory" you can not make predictions thus you can not test it and God can not be falsified. You can not prove or disprove God with science, thus God is not and never will be a factor in science.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| The scientific method is essentially this, observation, theory, prediction, testing and falsifiability. |
(Sorry, just to nitpick: hypothesis would be a better word to use there than theory. Theory has a special meaning in science that's not the same thing as what you mean. And given the amount of times i hear that "it's just a theory" nonsense to dismiss things like evolution, abiogenesis, the big bang, gravity, etc., i feel we should take a hard line on terminology. (And yes, i know i don't always practice what i preach, but if i ever do ****** up, please point it out. >.<) Other than that, everything else is in your post is correct.)
I don't understand why religion and science always must argue over same bad ideas. Im a scientist by myself a think that all the things human has discovery is pretty right evolution, bigbang and so one. But i also believe that God exist how? i dont know but it give me hope of a better world. I my belief so do God maybe put up the parameters for over existence and so on. But i don't really care how he exist the most important is what he represent. Maybe is my belief just a human wish for a meaning of my life or that I not only gone be worm food.
Then the bible and other religion book should I don't take to much serious because to many "normal" person has write and editing in that book. Not to long ago they discover judas evagliet, what should we trust? And the power use of the religion in the politic that still going on
But the science still is build on proof and that is nesary to owe civilization gone evolve.
Then the bible and other religion book should I don't take to much serious because to many "normal" person has write and editing in that book. Not to long ago they discover judas evagliet, what should we trust? And the power use of the religion in the politic that still going on
But the science still is build on proof and that is nesary to owe civilization gone evolve.
| Quote: |
| The universe is too complex to have com about naturally. Wrong, many things go from simple to complex, just look at us, we start out as a sperm and an egg cell.
Carbon dating is inaccurate. Wrong, though there is a little give or take in it, has been proven accurate. |
First off it is impossible to prove anything in science, but you should know that
If you knew what you were talking about, I might consider it, but since you dont, we start off a a cell, but it has already 46 chromosomes already in it so duplicate already. That code in a cell has the code already to code for another cell. In evolution it takes genetic code and changes it. For macro-evolution you cannot go from having 5 chromosomes to anything higher. If you knew anything about genetics, it's not possible. There are 2 different mutations
point mutation: where one nucleotide changes or a
frame shift: where one nucleotide is added an shifts all the nucleotides, BUT doesn't add any chromosomes
of course god is exist.
we can find answer by asking questions to ourselves.
For example;
To belive that what you should know. You have just 5 feeling and your thinkings. That makes you.
We can not see, feel, hear, etc. god,
Can you see your opinions, thinkings etc Of course no! But you belive that they exist.
This means that in this world there are a lot of thing that we can not see, hear, etc. It is posible of existencia of God.
we can find answer by asking questions to ourselves.
For example;
To belive that what you should know. You have just 5 feeling and your thinkings. That makes you.
We can not see, feel, hear, etc. god,
Can you see your opinions, thinkings etc Of course no! But you belive that they exist.
This means that in this world there are a lot of thing that we can not see, hear, etc. It is posible of existencia of God.
I believe he does, but thats all it comes down to personal beliefs.
GOD is exist. but its up to you as personal to beliefe or not
The thing that people don't understand is that god knows infinintely more than we do. People don't beleive because they don't understand. We'll never understand. If you put it in perspective. We are 1 year olds trying to understand calculus
--God is awesome and Jesus is my Savior AMEN
--God is awesome and Jesus is my Savior AMEN
i think the last few posts make it clear why this discussion has no place in a science forum.
If any of this comes under the umbrella of "nature", i'd be curious to see how.
If any of this comes under the umbrella of "nature", i'd be curious to see how.
I think, actually, the title of this thread has no place in a science forum.
It's like trying to prove "happy is good" using only the numbers 1 and 2, and a plus-sign.
It's like trying to prove "happy is good" using only the numbers 1 and 2, and a plus-sign.
There's a quote by Jean-Paul Sartre that I particularly like:
But to answer the question: no, I don't believe in God. I understand science and can see no other explanation.
| Quote: |
| We are condemned to a life of unprovable uncertainty. |
But to answer the question: no, I don't believe in God. I understand science and can see no other explanation.
Religion controls the masses, huh? Last time I checked, there's talk of us losing our freedom to drive what we want (global warming & the anti-SUV movement), we had to stop the eradication of malaria in impoverished nations (worldwide ban on DDT thanks to "Silent Spring"), mass rearing of beef in feed lots is under fire (methane gas & the ozone), and unnecessary "over protection" of species at the expense of our livelihood (by the same folks who revere evolution & natural selection). All of these "mass controls" are examples of what some scientists think, but can't indisputably prove.
I'm a researcher. I have discovered one glaring point about science: "WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT!"
Two examples to boost your confidence in "modern" science. First, one of the greatest killers of the human population today--malaria. What is malaria? We'll the root words mean "mal" (bad) "aria" (air). Yep...you guessed it. When we go down to the swamp (where the swamp gas smells really bad) and we breathe in that "bad air", a few days later we get a fever and die. Hmmm...isn't it about time science correct this ancient assumption and rename the disease? Or is that sacrilege to the scientists that (at the time) were on the cutting edge? But even better is the newest discovery in the avian world. There seems to be a woodpecker that was THOUGHT to be extinct, but has actually been spotted in the SE United States. Now let's use your "scientific logic" to explain how this could be.
1. The science-based experts that studied and proclaimed this bird to be extinct were wrong. Oh dear...if they could be wrong on this, perhaps they could be wrong on other things.
2. The science-based experts that have discovered this bird to be alive are wrong. Oh dear...if they could be wrong on this, perhaps they could be wrong on other things.
3. This bird reemerged from [insert favorite scientific belief about the origin of the universe here] and we're now just rediscovering this bird (again).
YES...I like #3. In fact, I like it so much that I want to name this species the "BIG BANG PECKER." It rose up from the ashes via the big bang theory and "just exists."
Bottom line: if you believe in science only...you'll be wrong in your beliefs, as science is imperfect. If you believe in religion only (w/o science) you'll be wrong, as religion does not explain the universe. The answer is not at the polar ends.
I'm a researcher. I have discovered one glaring point about science: "WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT!"
Two examples to boost your confidence in "modern" science. First, one of the greatest killers of the human population today--malaria. What is malaria? We'll the root words mean "mal" (bad) "aria" (air). Yep...you guessed it. When we go down to the swamp (where the swamp gas smells really bad) and we breathe in that "bad air", a few days later we get a fever and die. Hmmm...isn't it about time science correct this ancient assumption and rename the disease? Or is that sacrilege to the scientists that (at the time) were on the cutting edge? But even better is the newest discovery in the avian world. There seems to be a woodpecker that was THOUGHT to be extinct, but has actually been spotted in the SE United States. Now let's use your "scientific logic" to explain how this could be.
1. The science-based experts that studied and proclaimed this bird to be extinct were wrong. Oh dear...if they could be wrong on this, perhaps they could be wrong on other things.
2. The science-based experts that have discovered this bird to be alive are wrong. Oh dear...if they could be wrong on this, perhaps they could be wrong on other things.
3. This bird reemerged from [insert favorite scientific belief about the origin of the universe here] and we're now just rediscovering this bird (again).
YES...I like #3. In fact, I like it so much that I want to name this species the "BIG BANG PECKER." It rose up from the ashes via the big bang theory and "just exists."
Bottom line: if you believe in science only...you'll be wrong in your beliefs, as science is imperfect. If you believe in religion only (w/o science) you'll be wrong, as religion does not explain the universe. The answer is not at the polar ends.
| TexasWes wrote: |
| Religion controls the masses, huh? Last time I checked, there's talk of us losing our freedom to drive what we want (global warming & the anti-SUV movement), we had to stop the eradication of malaria in impoverished nations (worldwide ban on DDT thanks to "Silent Spring"), mass rearing of beef in feed lots is under fire (methane gas & the ozone), and unnecessary "over protection" of species at the expense of our livelihood (by the same folks who revere evolution & natural selection). All of these "mass controls" are examples of what some scientists think, but can't indisputably prove.
I'm a researcher. I have discovered one glaring point about science: "WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT!" Two examples to boost your confidence in "modern" science. First, one of the greatest killers of the human population today--malaria. What is malaria? We'll the root words mean "mal" (bad) "aria" (air). Yep...you guessed it. When we go down to the swamp (where the swamp gas smells really bad) and we breathe in that "bad air", a few days later we get a fever and die. Hmmm...isn't it about time science correct this ancient assumption and rename the disease? Or is that sacrilege to the scientists that (at the time) were on the cutting edge? But even better is the newest discovery in the avian world. There seems to be a woodpecker that was THOUGHT to be extinct, but has actually been spotted in the SE United States. Now let's use your "scientific logic" to explain how this could be. 1. The science-based experts that studied and proclaimed this bird to be extinct were wrong. Oh dear...if they could be wrong on this, perhaps they could be wrong on other things. 2. The science-based experts that have discovered this bird to be alive are wrong. Oh dear...if they could be wrong on this, perhaps they could be wrong on other things. 3. This bird reemerged from [insert favorite scientific belief about the origin of the universe here] and we're now just rediscovering this bird (again). YES...I like #3. In fact, I like it so much that I want to name this species the "BIG BANG PECKER." It rose up from the ashes via the big bang theory and "just exists." Bottom line: if you believe in science only...you'll be wrong in your beliefs, as science is imperfect. If you believe in religion only (w/o science) you'll be wrong, as religion does not explain the universe. The answer is not at the polar ends. |
^_^ Dude, seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about.
The whole point of science is that knowledge accumulates, and sometimes new knowledge replaces the old. Once we thought that all health problems were caused by demons and fluid imbalances... now we know better.
No one but a dribbling idiot seriously thinks that science - at any point in history, including the present - is perfect. There are a lot of things we don't know, and a lot of things we may be wrong about. That's why we do experiments - to find out what we don't know and where we might be wrong. If you "believe" in science, you're as crazy as any religious extremist - and stupid too. Because science is not a religion. It is not meant to be "believed".
All science is is an organized collection of the knowledge we have accumulated so far, and a method for getting more. That's it.
Ok, the scientists who thought malaria was due to bad air were wrong. Whoop-de-doo. No one goes to hell to suffer an eternal damnation for being wrong in science. They tried their best to understand something, and were wrong. Now we know better. Maybe we're wrong, too. *shrug* Who knows? (i can't even imagine how you could think it would be "sacrilege" to the scientists who thought it was bad air to rename the disease. What are you, some kind of religious nut? Science doesn't work like religion you know. "Sacrilege" requires something to be "sacred". There is nothing sacred in science. Here's a wacky thought: maybe no one's renamed the disease because it DOESN'T REALLY MATTER! Derrrr.)
As for the bird - the correct way to explain it is 1 and 2. Assume the data is wrong and assume the theory is wrong and test both. Anyone who dogmatically believes any scientfic theory or data is definitely true is a fool.
If you really are a researcher, you really don't know much about science at all. You should really read up on it, because you're WAY out in left field. Nothing of what you described even remotely resembles what science really is.
| Quote: |
| Anyone who dogmatically believes any scientfic theory or data is definitely true is a fool |
Amen
| coolsmile wrote: | ||
Amen |
Says those who do not understand science.
every thing in science is falsifiable no matter how much evidence there is for it.
| The Conspirator wrote: | ||||
Says those who do not understand science. every thing in science is falsifiable no matter how much evidence there is for it. |
Well I don't think those two don't understand science. I think they rather water turning into wine than urine turning into water.
| QrafTee wrote: | ||||||
Well I don't think those two don't understand science. I think they rather water turning into wine than urine turning into water. |
Um...
First, Conspirator just repeated what i said and what coolsmile agreed with, even as he said it wasn't true.
Second, i don't even get what QRafTee's point is. Your analogy makes no sense at all, unless you're trying to imply that coolsmile and i would ignore known scientific processes like the water cycle in favour of silly religious stories.
Anyone who believes any scientific theory or scientific "fact" is absolutely true is a moron. As Conspirator says, everything in science is designed to fail - if something cannot be disproven, then it is not science. The entire existence of science, and the method, is based on the idea that we can't be sure of anything - we can't trust our first instincts, we can't trust our senses, we can't trust any observations or theories. Everything must be tested and retested. Whatever we call "known" or "true" in science is simply the theory or fact that is currently the most likely to be the real truth.
Mind you, by this point in science's history, we can generally have extremely high confidence in those theories and facts. Most of what we "know" scientifically has been savagely tested and challenged, in some cases for hundreds of years, without a single unexplainable contradictory finding. So although science isn't designed to be dogmatically believed, you can be pretty damned confident in it.
If you want something to dogmatically believe, or something that claims to be absolutely true, science is not what you're looking for. Go find a religion. Science is a "religion" of doubt, and the whole practice of science revolves around attempting to decrease doubt as much as humanly possible... but it can never be totally removed.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| This is a religious question, this is a science forum.
God it not important in science,in science it doesn't madder if god exists or not, what madders is the evidence. |
Your spelling is just going to make us madder at you.
But to the point, to find out whether God exists is to think logically. How did the first matter (or energy, or anything) get there? There are only two explanations: either there was an intelligent designer, or the matter was there always (and following that logic, that matter will always exist). We can cross the latter out automatically (almost). We can't comprehend what always existing can be like, so it would seem very odd that it always existed, and no one knows how it got there. So what I am saying is, no matter what explanation evolution can give, they will never explain the first matter that ever existed, unless, of course, supernaturality interferes. So yes, there has to be a God. But I'd still be really interested at what you evolutionists think regarding how the first matter existed.
Another problem with not having a God, is how perfect the universe is. As sometimes described, the universe is "finely tuned." This is very obvious. Now, remember that evolutionists think that energy and forces can't evolve (right?). For example, the force of gravity on two objects (assuming the variables aren't changed through the years) will never be different than the force of gravity on the two objects when they were first pulling. This seems obviously correct, because of how long the earth has been orbiting the sun, and the moon the earth, etc. Now before I talk about how finely tuned these forces are, I would like to know why forces exist. Why and how were they created? They are obviously needed, but who would realize that without a creator? On to my point, massive and inorganic objects can move around similar objects easily. Take, for example, the moon and the earth. It has been orbiting for many, many years. If the force of gravity was stronger, not only the earth and the moon, but much matter would pull together and the universe would cease to exist altogether.
Fallacys, misunderstanding and thing that are just wrong.
Ahh, the false dilemma fallacy.
We don't know what started the big bang, that dose not mean God did it! It means we don't know. Just cause we don;t know the cause of something dose not mean God did it nor dose that mean we will never know. Its very possible that we will figure it out and maybe even reproduce the conditions the lead to it (though on a much, much, much smaller scale).
Thats not what evolution is about, its not abut the source of the universe. Evolution tels us how the currant living creators came about.
Thats not science. God is not falsifiable, it can not be disproven and if it can not be disproven than it has no place in science.
That depends on the evolutinest, we are a very dioverce grupe, some beleve in God, some don't.
That has no many errors it is redicules.
Were do you people get this crap?
| THEemu wrote: |
| But to the point, to find out whether God exists is to think logically. How did the first matter (or energy, or anything) get there? There are only two explanations: either there was an intelligent designer, or the matter was there always (and following that logic, that matter will always exist). We can cross the latter out automatically (almost). We can't comprehend what always existing can be like, so it would seem very odd that it always existed, and no one knows how it got there. |
Ahh, the false dilemma fallacy.
We don't know what started the big bang, that dose not mean God did it! It means we don't know. Just cause we don;t know the cause of something dose not mean God did it nor dose that mean we will never know. Its very possible that we will figure it out and maybe even reproduce the conditions the lead to it (though on a much, much, much smaller scale).
| Quote: |
| So what I am saying is, no matter what explanation evolution can give, they will never explain the first matter that ever existed, |
Thats not what evolution is about, its not abut the source of the universe. Evolution tels us how the currant living creators came about.
| Quote: |
| unless, of course, supernaturality interferes. So yes, there has to be a God. |
Thats not science. God is not falsifiable, it can not be disproven and if it can not be disproven than it has no place in science.
| Quote: |
| But I'd still be really interested at what you evolutionists think regarding how the first matter existed. |
That depends on the evolutinest, we are a very dioverce grupe, some beleve in God, some don't.
| Quote: |
| Another problem with not having a God, is how perfect the universe is. As sometimes described, the universe is "finely tuned." This is very obvious. Now, remember that evolutionists think that energy and forces can't evolve (right?). For example, the force of gravity on two objects (assuming the variables aren't changed through the years) will never be different than the force of gravity on the two objects when they were first pulling. This seems obviously correct, because of how long the earth has been orbiting the sun, and the moon the earth, etc. Now before I talk about how finely tuned these forces are, I would like to know why forces exist. Why and how were they created? They are obviously needed, but who would realize that without a creator? On to my point, massive and inorganic objects can move around similar objects easily. Take, for example, the moon and the earth. It has been orbiting for many, many years. If the force of gravity was stronger, not only the earth and the moon, but much matter would pull together and the universe would cease to exist altogether. |
That has no many errors it is redicules.
Were do you people get this crap?
| THEemu wrote: |
| But to the point, to find out whether God exists is to think logically. |
Using logic alone does not make something science. Logic is used in philosophy as well. This thread does not belong in a science forum.
| THEemu wrote: |
| How did the first matter (or energy, or anything) get there? There are only two explanations: either there was an intelligent designer, or the matter was there always (and following that logic, that matter will always exist). We can cross the latter out automatically (almost). We can't comprehend what always existing can be like, so it would seem very odd that it always existed, and no one knows how it got there. |
Your "logic" is specious. Just because you can't "comprehend" one possibility does not immediately make the other true.
Assuming the existence of a "god" violates parsimony by introducing an unnecessary entity - which you then have to explain anyway... where did the "god" come from? Introducing a "god" does not fix the problem, it only delays having to answer it.
| THEemu wrote: |
| So what I am saying is, no matter what explanation evolution can give, they will never explain the first matter that ever existed, unless, of course, supernaturality interferes. So yes, there has to be a God. But I'd still be really interested at what you evolutionists think regarding how the first matter existed. |
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with explaining where the first matter came from.
Also, there is no such thing as an evolutionist. There hasn't been since the late 1800's. The term is often used by people who attack scientific theories that do not agree with their religion, but there is actually no such thing outside of their own claims. The fact that you use this term gives away that you were influenced by groups that are known enemies of science. Do you expect to be taken seriously as a scientist with that kind of people supporting you?
| THEemu wrote: |
| Another problem with not having a God, is how perfect the universe is. As sometimes described, the universe is "finely tuned." This is very obvious. Now, remember that evolutionists think that energy and forces can't evolve (right?). For example, the force of gravity on two objects (assuming the variables aren't changed through the years) will never be different than the force of gravity on the two objects when they were first pulling. This seems obviously correct, because of how long the earth has been orbiting the sun, and the moon the earth, etc. Now before I talk about how finely tuned these forces are, I would like to know why forces exist. Why and how were they created? They are obviously needed, but who would realize that without a creator? On to my point, massive and inorganic objects can move around similar objects easily. Take, for example, the moon and the earth. It has been orbiting for many, many years. If the force of gravity was stronger, not only the earth and the moon, but much matter would pull together and the universe would cease to exist altogether. |
This is the latest rage in pseudoscience - the fine-tuning theory. You have been deceived if you were led to beleive (as most are) that this is the only valid solution to the anthropic problem. Here are some other options.
Once again, introducing the idea of a "god" to solve this problem violates parsimony, and really solves nothing because then you have to explain where the "god" came from. Thus that is not a possibility that would be considered by science.
| Quote: |
| Using logic alone does not make something science. Logic is used in philosophy as well. This thread does not belong in a science forum. |
No, but you will always need at least a small bit of logic. I believe in a God because I don't know how matter could have gotten there, unless it was always existant. Many people who don't believe in a God assume this: the matter was not always existant, and there is matter. You can't get something out of nothing, so something or someone had to create it.
| Quote: |
| Also, there is no such thing as an evolutionist. |
Yes, I do know that evolutionists are somehow against that term. They typically want to be seperated from the "-ist" "-ism" etc. because they are so convinced that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Yet the best way to address this "true science" belief, evolution or evolutionist is the best way to call it. If you are offended, I will stop. But for now, I will use the term.
And one thing which I would like to say, you refer to science as evolution, and the usage of God religion. But both creation or evolution can be described as a science. You may think that one is false, but that doesn't make the other a science, and the "false" one a non-science.
| Quote: |
| This is the latest rage in pseudoscience - the fine-tuning theory. You have been deceived if you were led to beleive (as most are) that this is the only valid solution to the anthropic problem. Here are some other options. |
Just wondering, which of those theories do you believe? The random chance is most likely the least probable, because of what I mentioned. The multiverse theory is interesting, but it doesn't seem that there is any real solid evidence to support any of the two multiverse theories. But it could be a possible explanation.
| Quote: |
| Once again, introducing the idea of a "god" to solve this problem violates parsimony, and really solves nothing because then you have to explain where the "god" came from. Thus that is not a possibility that would be considered by science. |
God was always existant. He wasn't created. He is supernatural, so that assumption could be made, even though we can't comprehend anything or anyone always existing. But if you are going to attack someone else's belief with that, then why don't you explain where the matter came from.
Moving on...
| Quote: |
| Ahh, the false dilemma fallacy.
We don't know what started the big bang, that dose not mean God did it! It means we don't know. Just cause we don;t know the cause of something dose not mean God did it nor dose that mean we will never know. Its very possible that we will figure it out and maybe even reproduce the conditions the lead to it (though on a much, much, much smaller scale). |
That isn't the best argument, either. What if you find a large flaw with the creationist theory? If you asked us, then by what you say, we can just say, "I don't know." So if you just say "I don't know," that would seem like a rather weak argument.
| Quote: |
| Thats not what evolution is about, its not abut the source of the universe. Evolution tels us how the currant living creators came about.
|
If evolution can't describe how things came about, then why does evolution have the "big bang" and the "big crunch" and things like that?
| Quote: |
| Thats not science. God is not falsifiable, it can not be disproven and if it can not be disproven than it has no place in science. |
No, God is not falsifiable. And evolution isn't falsifiable, either. And as a scientific rule, nothing in science can be proven without fault. We say that gravity is a constant. But what if many years ago, a rock suddenly fell from earth into space? So, we can't falsify anything either.
| Quote: |
| That has no many errors it is redicules.
Were do you people get this crap? |
Hmm...do you mean that it "ridicules" or it is "ridiculous"? And it has "so many errors" or "no errors"? But I guess you can go up to see what I said to Indi's (more intelligent) argument.
| THEemu wrote: |
| No, but you will always need at least a small bit of logic. I believe in a God because I don't know how matter could have gotten there, unless it was always existant. |
You don't know the answer so you assume God. If some one brakes into your house and steel all you stuff and you don't know who did it, do you assume God did? If something happons and you don;t know whay do you assume God did it?
| Quote: |
| Many people who don't believe in a God assume this: the matter was not always existant, and there is matter. You can't get something out of nothing, so something or someone had to create it. |
We don't assume, we don't know and we admit that instead of assuming God did it.
What makes you think something can't come from nothing? What if all you need is the right conditions and suddenly boom, a bunch of energy appears.
We simply don't know.
At this point for all we know, the big bang was started by some alien scientists running some experiment in some alternate universe.
We don't know and don't assume anything about it.
| Quote: |
| That isn't the best argument, either. What if you find a large flaw with the creationist theory? If you asked us, then by what you say, we can just say, "I don't know." So if you just say "I don't know," that would seem like a rather weak argument. |
Fist of all, there is a large hole in creationism, it assumes that a God exists.
If you don't know an answer to a question, it is better to say "I don't know" than assume some supernatural force did it. Especially when you consider things that in the past were thought to be supernatural or caused, or controlled by the supernatural have been proven to be or have natural causes.
Learn from the past.
| Quote: |
| If evolution can't describe how things came about, then why does evolution have the "big bang" and the "big crunch" and things like that? |
Evolution has nothing to do with where the matter we are made of came from. Evolution is the graduwel change over many genrations, the theroy of evolution is an explonation of the proses of evolution. Nether has has anything to do with the souce of the matter that make up life.
| Quote: |
| No, God is not falsifiable. And evolution isn't falsifiable, either. And as a scientific rule, nothing in science can be proven without fault. We say that gravity is a constant. But what if many years ago, a rock suddenly fell from earth into space? So, we can't falsify anything either. |
First of all, let me explain how science works. First of all a scientific theory is not a guess, in science a theory is an explanation of a phenomena, for instance, gravity exists (we are all pushed down), the theory of gravity explains how it works (objects are attracted to each other). Second theres the scientific method, which is basically this (though it differ in the difference fields of science): First you make observations, then you use those observations to make a hypotheses, then you use that hypothesis to make testable predictions, then you test those predictions. Evolution can and has been tested. You can test it, you can put fast reproducing creators (single celled organisms, insects, maybe mice) in a controlled environment difference from there natural environment (but not so different that is kills them) (natural selection). If the theory of evolution is false than than they would not adapts to that environment. You can also test it by simply breeding animals. The theory of evolution is falsifiable cause it makes testable predictions. The fact of evolution is also proved by such testing as well as the fossil recored and the breeding of animals.
| THEemu wrote: | ||
No, but you will always need at least a small bit of logic. I believe in a God because I don't know how matter could have gotten there, unless it was always existant. Many people who don't believe in a God assume this: the matter was not always existant, and there is matter. You can't get something out of nothing, so something or someone had to create it. |
To repeat myself: "Using logic alone does not make something science." i did not say you can't/shouldn't use logic. i said that "logic alone does not make something science."
"God" cannot be science for other reasons - not just because it is an illogical concept (and you admit as much when you use your "supernatural" copout) - so even if you used "logic" to deduce the existence of "God", it's not science.
To repeat myself again: "This thread does not belong in a science forum."
| THEemu wrote: | ||
Yes, I do know that evolutionists are somehow against that term. They typically want to be seperated from the "-ist" "-ism" etc. because they are so convinced that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Yet the best way to address this "true science" belief, evolution or evolutionist is the best way to call it. If you are offended, I will stop. But for now, I will use the term. |
The statement in bold sounds rather like a paranoid fantasy to me, but i trust you would not have made it unless you can back it up with facts and sources. So by all means, show your sources for this claim.
There is no such thing as an "evolutionist". The theory of evolution is not a belief to be followed, it is a scientific theory. It may be right, it may be wrong. No one knows. But given the exhorbitant amount of evidence for and the ridiculous amount of challenge it has stood up against, the chances of it being right are very, very high indeed.
But despite that and despite your paranoid claims, if it the evidence begins to pile up against the theory of evolution, it will be abandoned. By contrast, belief in creation will not be abandoned, regardless of the amount of evidence accumulated against it, because it is a religious concept that can acceptably be held on to by faith alone.
Another mistake you are making is evidenced by your usage of the term "true science". This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of science on your part. Science is not "truth". Science is just what we have left once we've eliminated all of the lies that we possibly can. The body of knowledge that we have now that constitutes science is not "truth", it is just a collection of the best we've got so far, having eliminated as much of the falsehoods as we could up to this point.
| THEemu wrote: |
| And one thing which I would like to say, you refer to science as evolution, and the usage of God religion. But both creation or evolution can be described as a science. You may think that one is false, but that doesn't make the other a science, and the "false" one a non-science. |
The statement i have highlighted in bold is false. Creation cannot be described as a science. It fails several of the requirements for being a scientific theory.
This has nothing to do with what is "true" or "false", or even whether "God" is involved or not. Science is what science is. Science has clearly defined definitions and methods, and it is very clear what counts as science and what does not. By contrast, religion has very vague definitions, and different people may consider a set of beliefs to be a religion or not depending on their point of view. Not so for science. Opinion doesn't count. Something is science if and only if it satisfies the definitions for being science. That's all there is to it.
"God" and "creationism" both fail the requirements for being scientific concepts and theories - not because they are "religious" concepts, but simply because they do not meet the minimum standards required for being science. That's all there is to it. It doesn't matter what anyone "believes".
| THEemu wrote: | ||
Just wondering, which of those theories do you believe? The random chance is most likely the least probable, because of what I mentioned. The multiverse theory is interesting, but it doesn't seem that there is any real solid evidence to support any of the two multiverse theories. But it could be a possible explanation. |
It doesn't matter what i believe, and i don't really care what you believe either. You presented the fine-tuning problem as evidence of God, i showed that God is just one of several possible solutions to the problem. You may believe that God is the most "likely" solution to the problem. Others may disagree. Doesn't really matter. The point is that you do not have "proof" of God's existence using this logic. You don't even really have "evidence" using this logic.
| THEemu wrote: | ||
God was always existant. He wasn't created. He is supernatural, so that assumption could be made, even though we can't comprehend anything or anyone always existing. But if you are going to attack someone else's belief with that, then why don't you explain where the matter came from. |
Ignoring the fact that you have invoked the supernatural, which immediately violates both science and nature (thus pretty much putting the final nail in any argument that this thread belongs in this forum), the logic you have presented fails to meet even the minimum standards for logic in science. Observe:
"God was always existant": Why? Because you say so? Because he says so? Other than that it fits your conception of what God is, how can you actually show that God was always "there"?
"He wasn't created": Why not? Coudn't there have been another being before him that created him? And another before that and so on? What evidence can you supply for God not being a creation himself?
"He is supernatural, so that assumption could be made, even though we can't comprehend anything or anyone always existing.": Any number of assumptions "could be made". i could assume God is green. Assumptions are meaningless unless you can logically back up your reasons for making those assumptions... and show that the assumption is necessary and that making it does not change the nature of the problem.
"But if you are going to attack someone else's belief with that, then why don't you explain where the matter came from.": i can't. But is that really a problem? You can't explain where God comes from either. You just say he's "supernatural" and make some hand-waving noises about us being unable to "comprehend". Alright. Fine. Matter came from a non-conscious, non-intelligent supernatural source of all matter - a supernatural energy "spring", if you prefer. But if that makes no sense, don't worry about it, because even though we can't really comprehend it, it can exist, right?
| Quote: |
| "God" cannot be science for other reasons - not just because it is an illogical concept (and you admit as much when you use your "supernatural" copout) - so even if you used "logic" to deduce the existence of "God", it's not science. |
The reason I think God exists, is not because I have solid, physcial evidence for it. I don't have solid physical evidence against it, either. It's because, logically, I think and it is my belief, that something creates something, and nothing doesn't create something. I thought and used my brain to come to this belief, and the reasoning of my brain is called logic (at least, according to dictionaries). It can be possible to create something with absolutely nothing. But I think that chances are low for that, because I've never seen it happen and it seems like a firm belief.
| Quote: |
| To repeat myself again: "This thread does not belong in a science forum." |
Why? Why isn't God science? Creation science is just like evolution science. They both have a theory for how things came about. And a science is simply a branch of knowledge according to dictionaries.
| Quote: |
| The statement in bold sounds rather like a paranoid fantasy to me, but i trust you would not have made it unless you can back it up with facts and sources. So by all means, show your sources for this claim. |
I've just learned of it when discussing with other evolutionists. They want to imply that it is a fact, not a theory or a belief. But, I will look up sources anyway. Wikipedia has it with a seemingly evolutionist bias when you look at the context, second paragraph down. It says they don't want to be with the other "-isms" and seemingly against an "-ist" also. Can't seem to find any other sources, but I will do a longer check after the posting of this message.
| Quote: |
| There is no such thing as an "evolutionist". The theory of evolution is not a belief to be followed, it is a scientific theory. It may be right, it may be wrong. No one knows. But given the exhorbitant amount of evidence for and the ridiculous amount of challenge it has stood up against, the chances of it being right are very, very high indeed.
|
The theory of evolution is a belief to be followed. If you think evolution isn't to be followed, then same goes for creation. They are at the same level. They both try to prove very similar things, and either could be disputed to be true.
| Quote: |
| But despite that and despite your paranoid claims, if it the evidence begins to pile up against the theory of evolution, it will be abandoned. By contrast, belief in creation will not be abandoned, regardless of the amount of evidence accumulated against it, because it is a religious concept that can acceptably be held on to by faith alone.
|
Christianity is a very old religion, and is today considered a religion by all means. Evolution is very new, however, but can still be considered a religion by the basic meaning. And so, the reason people believe Christianity (and therefore creation) is because there has been thousands of years, and evidence against it has not "piled up." If creation was refuted, then we would stop believing it. So far, there has not been any conclusive evidence against it, specifically having a God (because of the topic). And if there was any conclusive evidence against it, then I would stop believing it. That is because x times 0 will always equal 0, no matter what x is. Same with theories. If there is one flaw in the theory, then it is all ruined. The geocentric theory seemed good, but there was a bit of evidence against it, not a lot (that is, not a lot from their perspective on science), but that small bit that they conclusively knew against the theory made it impossible.
| Quote: |
| Another mistake you are making is evidenced by your usage of the term "true science". This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of science on your part. Science is not "truth". Science is just what we have left once we've eliminated all of the lies that we possibly can. The body of knowledge that we have now that constitutes science is not "truth", it is just a collection of the best we've got so far, having eliminated as much of the falsehoods as we could up to this point. |
The reason I used the term "true science" was because many evolutionists think that evolution is true. I am glad you say that "science is not 'truth'" instead of saying it has to be true.
| Quote: |
| Creation cannot be described as a science. It fails several of the requirements for being a scientific theory.
This has nothing to do with what is "true" or "false", or even whether "God" is involved or not. Science is what science is. Science has clearly defined definitions and methods, and it is very clear what counts as science and what does not. By contrast, religion has very vague definitions, and different people may consider a set of beliefs to be a religion or not depending on their point of view. Not so for science. Opinion doesn't count. Something is science if and only if it satisfies the definitions for being science. That's all there is to it. |
Some science can count as religion, and some religion can be counted as science. The science of evolution is a belief, not a proven fact. Most evolutionists will say that it is a theory. It could also be a science, because it explains something natural or physical. It is a science. It is a belief (which could be called a religion). But that is the only majorly accepted discipline of science that can be both a science and a belief. For example, chemistry is a science, but it isn't a belief. Creation is a belief and a science. It is believed that there is a God, but it also explains how things came about physically. And you say that in science, opinion doesn't count. But there are different kinds of evolutionists. Lastly, you talk about the "definition" of a science. May you show me where you found this definition?
| Quote: |
| "God" and "creationism" both fail the requirements for being scientific concepts and theories - not because they are "religious" concepts, but simply because they do not meet the minimum standards required for being science. That's all there is to it. It doesn't matter what anyone "believes".
|
Again, I'd like to see where you yourself found this definition of science. You say that God and creationism "do not meet the minimum standards required for being science." The minimum requirements for being science is a branch of knowledge. I think that God and creationism is a brance of knowledge.
| Quote: |
| Ignoring the fact that you have invoked the supernatural, which immediately violates both science and nature (thus pretty much putting the final nail in any argument that this thread belongs in this forum), the logic you have presented fails to meet even the minimum standards for logic in science. |
Science does not have to be completely natural. It has to simply explain natural things. Creation does that. Evolution does that. They are science. And what are the minimum standards for logic in science, if I violated them?
| Quote: |
| "God was always existant": Why? Because you say so? Because he says so? Other than that it fits your conception of what God is, how can you actually show that God was always "there"? |
Because that is the explanation of the theory. You asked what our explanation was, and that is what I said.
| Quote: |
| "He is supernatural, so that assumption could be made, even though we can't comprehend anything or anyone always existing.": Any number of assumptions "could be made". i could assume God is green. Assumptions are meaningless unless you can logically back up your reasons for making those assumptions... and show that the assumption is necessary and that making it does not change the nature of the problem. |
That is because it isn't a blind assumption. It says so in the Bible. The Bible doesn't say that God is green, so I didn't make that assumption.
| Quote: |
| "But if you are going to attack someone else's belief with that, then why don't you explain where the matter came from.": i can't. But is that really a problem? You can't explain where God comes from either. You just say he's "supernatural" and make some hand-waving noises about us being unable to "comprehend". Alright. Fine. Matter came from a non-conscious, non-intelligent supernatural source of all matter - a supernatural energy "spring", if you prefer. But if that makes no sense, don't worry about it, because even though we can't really comprehend it, it can exist, right? |
Well is it really a problem that you can't explain where matter came from? Yes. The topic is about God, so we should stay on that topic. Basically, in the theory of creation, there is supernaturality. In the theory of evolution, there isn't. But if you would like to create your new theory of the beginning of the universe, and talk to others about it, maybe it will be a successful theory.
Since there are two people quoting and replying to my posts, the amount of typing has increased by twice each time, so I will stop here. I don't have all day to type.
| Quote: |
| Why? Why isn't God science? |
Its simple. God is not falsifiable, you can't test for the existence of God and if you can't test it, if it can't be falsifies than its not science.
How hard is that for you people to get?
| Quote: |
| Creation science is just like evolution science. They both have a theory for how things came about. |
NO! Read what I say! Creation science is not science, it is baced on God and God has no place in science. Why? Look above.
| Quote: |
| And a science is simply a branch of knowledge according to dictionaries. |
Science if far more that that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
| Quote: |
| The theory of evolution is a belief to be followed. |
No. Way off. The theory of evolution is the explanations of the proses of evolution, the proses of evolution is the change of species of many generations. Evolution has been shown through the fossil record, the variety of species and subspecies, the breeding of animals.
| Quote: |
| They are at the same level. |
No, evolution is based on observation and empirical evidence, creation is based on religions belief.
| Quote: |
| Evolution is very new, however, but can still be considered a religion by the basic meaning. |
No, evolution is the changing of a species over many generations. Religion is spiritual belief(s).
| Quote: |
| And so, the reason people believe Christianity (and therefore creation) is because there has been thousands of years, and evidence against it has not "piled up." |
What about Islam? Or Judaism, Hinduism and Zoroastrianism? Those have been around longer. Yet none of these religions has evidence to support then and allot of evidence against them.
| Quote: |
| If creation was refuted, then we would stop believing it. So far, there has not been any conclusive evidence against it, specifically having a God (because of the topic). And if there was any conclusive evidence against it, then I would stop believing it. |
Really? Cause the earth is undoubtedly a sphier and these say its flat. There are people who still believe crop circles are are of supernatural or alien origin despite the fact that all the evidence points to people as the source of crop circles. There are people who believe in alien abduction (see this about that). People believe in fung shue, in lay lines, astrology and a bunch of other crap despite the evidence and reality .
| Quote: |
| That is because it isn't a blind assumption. It says so in the Bible. The Bible doesn't say that God is green, so I didn't make that assumption. |
Ahh the bible. Book of crap. A book full of contridictions and bad things.
| Quote: |
| Well is it really a problem that you can't explain where matter came from? Yes. The topic is about God, so we should stay on that topic. Basically, in the theory of creation, there is supernaturality. In the theory of evolution, there isn't. |
To repeat myself. 1. Just cause we don't have the answer dose not mean God did it, it means we don;t have the answer. 2. Evolution is not about were the matter we are made of comes from.
| Quote: |
| But if you would like to create your new theory of the beginning of the universe, and talk to others about it, maybe it will be a successful theory. |
You can't just create a theory. You have to have observations, in the case of physics you need mathematical bases for it.
You can't just get an idea and call it a theory.
| THEemu wrote: | ||
The reason I think God exists, is not because I have solid, physcial evidence for it. I don't have solid physical evidence against it, either. It's because, logically, I think and it is my belief, that something creates something, and nothing doesn't create something. I thought and used my brain to come to this belief, and the reasoning of my brain is called logic (at least, according to dictionaries). It can be possible to create something with absolutely nothing. But I think that chances are low for that, because I've never seen it happen and it seems like a firm belief. |
There's nothing wrong with believing God exists without any logical basis whatsoever, and there's nothing wrong with believing God exists based on logic. Put simply, there's nothing wrong with believing in God period. There's nothing wrong with believing he created the world in six "days" 6000 years ago.
You just can't bring God into science. God cannot be expressed as a scientific concept, and any theory that involves God fails on a fundamental level as a scientific theory.
| THEemu wrote: | ||
Why? Why isn't God science? Creation science is just like evolution science. They both have a theory for how things came about. And a science is simply a branch of knowledge according to dictionaries. |
The dictionary is a tool designed to give you the meaning of unfamiliar words. It is not intended to explain concepts in any depth. Let me give you an example. i want to know the meaning of "car", so i check the dictionary. It says "automobile", so i look that up. It says "a passenger vehicle designed for operation on ordinary roads and typically having four wheels and a gasoline or diesel internal-combustion engine". Alright. Now i know what a car is. This is a car.
Only... it's not... is it?
Yes, science is system of acquiring knowledge, and it is also the branch of knowledge that has been acquired using that system. Your definition is not wrong. It is just incomplete. Just like that definition of a car is not wrong. It's just incomplete.
"Science" is one of those words that serves several purposes. It is a system of acquiring knowledge, but it is also what we call the knowledge that has been acquired using that system. (In other words, you can "do science" (use the system of science to find things out) and "know science" (be familiar with the knowledge of science).) Specifically, it is the system of acquiring knowledge that uses the scientific method.
The scientific method describes how information is to be collected and sorted, and converted from information to knowledge. But by doing that, the method creates limits on what information can be collected, and how it can be organized (and made into laws and theories). For example, because the scientific method demands observations that are repeatable and intersubjective, things like feelings cannot be studied by science (not without finding a way to observe them intersubjectively, and generate the same feelings repeatedly).
Creation theory does not satisfiy those demands. It's not enough for it to be a theory about how things came about. i can make up dozens of such theories right here on the spot. It has to satisfy the constraints of a scientific theory, and it does not.
| THEemu wrote: | ||
I've just learned of it when discussing with other evolutionists. They want to imply that it is a fact, not a theory or a belief. But, I will look up sources anyway. Wikipedia has it with a seemingly evolutionist bias when you look at the context, second paragraph down. It says they don't want to be with the other "-isms" and seemingly against an "-ist" also. Can't seem to find any other sources, but I will do a longer check after the posting of this message. |
See... when someone says you are being paranoid... and then you go do checks to see whether that's true are not and the sources turn out to suggest that you are not paranoid... and then you next conclusion is "the sources are in on it too!"....
Well... that's about all i can say on that >_<
| THEemu wrote: | ||
The theory of evolution is a belief to be followed. If you think evolution isn't to be followed, then same goes for creation. They are at the same level. They both try to prove very similar things, and either could be disputed to be true. |
The theory of evolution is not a belief. It is a scientific theory. It's in the name itself: "the theory of evolution". Not the belief of evolution. You don't need to believe it to study it and do any science that involves it - and in fact many people do research on the theory of evolution that don't believe it. Science does not require belief, it just requires that you adhere to the discipline of the scientific method. The scientific method does not require you to believe what your researching.
Creation itself may not be a belief, but belief is necessary in order to study it. Observe:
Assume evolution is false. Now look around the world and ask "can it be true given only what i can observe"? You can observe evolution in action (microevolution) and you can observe the mechanisms that allow for macroevolution of species. You can also observe fossil records. None of this constitutes absolute proof for evolution, of course, but it does make accepting evolution as true without blind faith possible.
Now assume creation is false. Can you observe evidence that suggests it is true? Actually, no you can't. The only evidence you can offer is negative evidence: such as "i have never seen one species evolve into another", but just because no one's seen something does not mean it does not happen.
The only way you can make the leap to assuming creation is true... is if you take a leap of faith. But that immediately makes it non-science.
| THEemu wrote: | ||
Christianity is a very old religion, and is today considered a religion by all means. Evolution is very new, however, but can still be considered a religion by the basic meaning. And so, the reason people believe Christianity (and therefore creation) is because there has been thousands of years, and evidence against it has not "piled up." If creation was refuted, then we would stop believing it. So far, there has not been any conclusive evidence against it, specifically having a God (because of the topic). And if there was any conclusive evidence against it, then I would stop believing it. That is because x times 0 will always equal 0, no matter what x is. Same with theories. If there is one flaw in the theory, then it is all ruined. The geocentric theory seemed good, but there was a bit of evidence against it, not a lot (that is, not a lot from their perspective on science), but that small bit that they conclusively knew against the theory made it impossible. |
But there's the problem right there. What exactly would be the evidence that proves creation conclusively "wrong"? There's actually no way that it can be done. And that is one of the major reasons that it cannot be science.
| THEemu wrote: | ||
The reason I used the term "true science" was because many evolutionists think that evolution is true. I am glad you say that "science is not 'truth'" instead of saying it has to be true. |
Yes, science is not "truth". Anyone who claims that it is is a fool, and that would include these "evolutionists". Science is just the collection of knowledge about the physical universe that we currently believe is most likely true. Nothing more, nothing less.
i suppose someone could believe science is "true"... but that would be pretty idiotic given that science is changing every day.
| THEemu wrote: | ||
Some science can count as religion, and some religion can be counted as science. The science of evolution is a belief, not a proven fact. Most evolutionists will say that it is a theory. It could also be a science, because it explains something natural or physical. It is a science. It is a belief (which could be called a religion). But that is the only majorly accepted discipline of science that can be both a science and a belief. For example, chemistry is a science, but it isn't a belief. Creation is a belief and a science. It is believed that there is a God, but it also explains how things came about physically. And you say that in science, opinion doesn't count. But there are different kinds of evolutionists. Lastly, you talk about the "definition" of a science. May you show me where you found this definition? |
Any parts of "science" that count as religion cannot be science. What is the definition of religion? As i know it, a religion is a set of beliefs that attempt to explain the universe that are held on faith. No science is held on faith. Therefore no science can be religon.
Evolution is not a belief, but it is two different things - a theory and a fact. The fact can be observed easily, and countless experiments have been done with fruit flies and other short-lived creatures. The theory is, of course, the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection. Neither one requires faith. The first only requires that you run the experiments, and you can see for yourself. The second is a scientific theory, and it doesn't really matter whether you believe it or not. It will be the dominant scientific theory until a better one comes along.
Creation is not science. (Reference)
The definition of science is available lots of places. You can look up "science" on Wikipedia, or Google "definition of science". Here are just the first couple of relevant links i found from the latter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-3.htm
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/SCIENCE/BASELINE.HTM
| THEemu wrote: | ||
Again, I'd like to see where you yourself found this definition of science. You say that God and creationism "do not meet the minimum standards required for being science." The minimum requirements for being science is a branch of knowledge. I think that God and creationism is a brance of knowledge. |
Above i provided links to the definition of science, as well as a description of why creationism fails. Before that i showed that science is more than just a branch of knowledge, and right above this the links will explain what the minimum requirements for science are. Creationism is indeed a branch of knowledge. But not all knowledge is science. Creationism is not science.
| THEemu wrote: | ||
Science does not have to be completely natural. It has to simply explain natural things. Creation does that. Evolution does that. They are science. And what are the minimum standards for logic in science, if I violated them? |
Science does have to be completely natural. The links above that define and explain science will demonstrate that. Simply explaining things is not enough to be science. Making stuff up "explains" things too.
The minimum standards for logic in science are that every assumption must be physically justifed. In philosophy you can make assumptions out of thin air, then construct an argument that ends up showing why those assumptions were correct to begin with (this is a common and valid method of proving something logically). You can't do that in science. Even if you do pull an assumption out of your ass then prove it later, it has to be proven by physical justification. In science, an argument has to be internally consistent, but while that's enough for pure logic, that's not enough for science.
None of the assumptions you present have a physical justification. Observe:
| THEemu wrote: | ||
Because that is the explanation of the theory. You asked what our explanation was, and that is what I said. |
What i was doing above was showing why your assumptions are not adequate. Your assumptions are based on nothing but beliefs - there is no physical evidence to support the claim of God's existence having always been the case. Your only evidence for your assumption is that the bible says so. That is not science. That is religion.
| THEemu wrote: | ||
That is because it isn't a blind assumption. It says so in the Bible. The Bible doesn't say that God is green, so I didn't make that assumption. |
Assumptions in science cannot be based on what someone told you, even if that someone is one of the most important books in history. Every assumption must have a physical basis.
| THEemu wrote: |
| Well is it really a problem that you can't explain where matter came from? Yes. The topic is about God, so we should stay on that topic. |
That topic is not science, it is religion. Thus this thread does not belong in this forum.
| THEemu wrote: |
| Basically, in the theory of creation, there is supernaturality. In the theory of evolution, there isn't. But if you would like to create your new theory of the beginning of the universe, and talk to others about it, maybe it will be a successful theory. |
There is no supernatural element allowed in science. The nature of science does not allow it (see the definitions of science above). If God is supernatural, he cannot be described by science.
i have no intention of creating any new theories. In science, it's ok to say "i don't know that yet" because science is designed to grow and change as we grow and change. Do i know where the original matter and energy came from? No. Could it have been God? Sure.
But no theory that includes God can be science (again, see the above definitions of science). i may not have any scientific theory for where the universe came from, but if all you got is "creation"... neither do you.
Even if i believed that God existed and that he created the universe, i could never advance it as a scientific theory.
For one i dont know if a god exist as a living entity, for what is god? is it a actual living thing/creature of is it a concept grown over day and age to fit our demands? For all we know god is a peace of our mind created in differnt ways like science and the church etc.
Here I am. I think, there is a little God in me (very little).
You can't prove God exists or doesn't exist, so as a Scientist, or you can say is that is it improbable that he exists. But let's suppose the very unlikely scenario that he does exists - does this have any relevance in the way I should lead my life? Most religions have the following concepts of God:
• He created the World – that’s clever, but how does this affect the way I should lead my life – I can’t see how it does
• We should worship God – Why ? Most children want to be praised for what they do and told how wonderful they are. This wears off into Adulthood and generally we don’t seek out as much praise (although some people of course always want people to worship them). So basically as you mature in life and become more confident in life, although you might want people to appreciate you, *most* people don’t want other people to worship the ground they walk on. So if there is some supreme being – does he really want people to worship him – isn’t he above that. In fact, if he created life, wouldn’t he prefer that people made something of there life and spent more time helping people rather than wasting time worshiping him.
• God looks out for people and protects them – But some people who lead a good life have terrible sufferings and some people who commit crimes, get away with it and don’t suffer too much – so basically either God chooses not to interfere with human suffering or he can’t interfere. And when I say “suffering” – I mean severe suffering. If there is a God I don’t expect that no-one should suffer, because if you don’t experience bad things you cannot have a concept of good things. But severe suffering, like dying of starvation, does not serve any purpose, so if God does not prevent this, then either this is because he can’t, he chooses not to – or of course, far more likely, because he doesn’t exist.
• God performs Miracles – so called miracles happen when God’s help is not asked for, and frequently when he’s help is asked for, miracles don’t happen. This week my Granddad fell out of a hospital bed in the morning and when the doctors arrived they couldn’t wake him. He had a cat scan and everything showed as ok, but the doctors still could not wake him. In the afternoon my parents were rung to say he had deteriorated and was not responding to anything and they should get to the hospital straight away. When my mother arrived (his daughter-in-law) she felt his forehead and he awoke. The doctors were embarrassed they had called my parents out and couldn’t explain this. Now some people would say this was a miracle and if someone religious had put there hand on his forehead saying “awake”, then a lot of people would say this was a miracle, but I just thing that probably sub-consciously he heard my mothers voice and so awoke.
• If we lead a religious life we will have a good afterlife/go to heaven etc. If you just have to lead a good life and not be religious, then I am quid’s in I think, but if you have to lead a religious life then how does this work. Most religions have only being about 2000 years or less, so what happens to the people who lived before this. Also there are some people today who are cut off from the rest of the World like Eskimos and so never get to hear about religion, so if they don’t go to heaven, then that is not fair, because they never had the chance to follow a religion. And what happens if you are religious all your life, but then after a series of tragic events you renounce your religion and say God doesn’t exist and then you get run over by a bus – do you go to heaven or not. Likewise, do you go to heaven if you are non-religious all your life, then get converted to a religion one day when your fifty and then get run over by a bus. And if both of these people go to heaven, then where do you draw the line – if you are religious for one day – is that enough.
And so if God does exist – I don’t see why this implies I should follow a religion and if I should, then what religion do I follow. If there is some God that speaks to people and tells them to follow him, then how come in the USA he tells most people to follow Christianity and in the Middle East he tells most people to follow Islam.
So to me, if God exists or not is just an interesting question, but even if someone could prove that God exists, I don’t see how I would lead my life any different. I just can’t understand why people believe in a book that was written hundreds of years ago, especially when there are different books for each religion – how do you decide which one is right – answer is, most people don’t even consider other religions, they just blindly follow the first one they encounter. And for people who say you can follow any religion, then here’s my religion:
Try not to upset anyone else if you can help it.
So if you follow this, your go to heaven
• He created the World – that’s clever, but how does this affect the way I should lead my life – I can’t see how it does
• We should worship God – Why ? Most children want to be praised for what they do and told how wonderful they are. This wears off into Adulthood and generally we don’t seek out as much praise (although some people of course always want people to worship them). So basically as you mature in life and become more confident in life, although you might want people to appreciate you, *most* people don’t want other people to worship the ground they walk on. So if there is some supreme being – does he really want people to worship him – isn’t he above that. In fact, if he created life, wouldn’t he prefer that people made something of there life and spent more time helping people rather than wasting time worshiping him.
• God looks out for people and protects them – But some people who lead a good life have terrible sufferings and some people who commit crimes, get away with it and don’t suffer too much – so basically either God chooses not to interfere with human suffering or he can’t interfere. And when I say “suffering” – I mean severe suffering. If there is a God I don’t expect that no-one should suffer, because if you don’t experience bad things you cannot have a concept of good things. But severe suffering, like dying of starvation, does not serve any purpose, so if God does not prevent this, then either this is because he can’t, he chooses not to – or of course, far more likely, because he doesn’t exist.
• God performs Miracles – so called miracles happen when God’s help is not asked for, and frequently when he’s help is asked for, miracles don’t happen. This week my Granddad fell out of a hospital bed in the morning and when the doctors arrived they couldn’t wake him. He had a cat scan and everything showed as ok, but the doctors still could not wake him. In the afternoon my parents were rung to say he had deteriorated and was not responding to anything and they should get to the hospital straight away. When my mother arrived (his daughter-in-law) she felt his forehead and he awoke. The doctors were embarrassed they had called my parents out and couldn’t explain this. Now some people would say this was a miracle and if someone religious had put there hand on his forehead saying “awake”, then a lot of people would say this was a miracle, but I just thing that probably sub-consciously he heard my mothers voice and so awoke.
• If we lead a religious life we will have a good afterlife/go to heaven etc. If you just have to lead a good life and not be religious, then I am quid’s in I think, but if you have to lead a religious life then how does this work. Most religions have only being about 2000 years or less, so what happens to the people who lived before this. Also there are some people today who are cut off from the rest of the World like Eskimos and so never get to hear about religion, so if they don’t go to heaven, then that is not fair, because they never had the chance to follow a religion. And what happens if you are religious all your life, but then after a series of tragic events you renounce your religion and say God doesn’t exist and then you get run over by a bus – do you go to heaven or not. Likewise, do you go to heaven if you are non-religious all your life, then get converted to a religion one day when your fifty and then get run over by a bus. And if both of these people go to heaven, then where do you draw the line – if you are religious for one day – is that enough.
And so if God does exist – I don’t see why this implies I should follow a religion and if I should, then what religion do I follow. If there is some God that speaks to people and tells them to follow him, then how come in the USA he tells most people to follow Christianity and in the Middle East he tells most people to follow Islam.
So to me, if God exists or not is just an interesting question, but even if someone could prove that God exists, I don’t see how I would lead my life any different. I just can’t understand why people believe in a book that was written hundreds of years ago, especially when there are different books for each religion – how do you decide which one is right – answer is, most people don’t even consider other religions, they just blindly follow the first one they encounter. And for people who say you can follow any religion, then here’s my religion:
Try not to upset anyone else if you can help it.
So if you follow this, your go to heaven
This "god" or "gods", if they exist, could probably be just some higher dimensional slug, and when it moves (or does anything) then it could change space-time for us 4 dimensional beings. You could bring science into this mess by talking about string theory and 10 or 11 potential dimensions that we humans could never experience, but maybe other forms of life could live in. Imagine living in a universe where you could go forward/backward or even sideways in space and time. But how can you prove any of this unless you have some pretty good mathematicians and a method to experiment in it.
| Sneemaster wrote: |
| This "god" or "gods", if they exist, could probably be just some higher dimensional slug, and when it moves (or does anything) then it could change space-time for us 4 dimensional beings. You could bring science into this mess by talking about string theory and 10 or 11 potential dimensions that we humans could never experience, but maybe other forms of life could live in. Imagine living in a universe where you could go forward/backward or even sideways in space and time. But how can you prove any of this unless you have some pretty good mathematicians and a method to experiment in it. |
The problem there is that if God were, say, some being in the 11th Dimension of a multiverse that conformed to M-Theory (11-D string theory) then he would, presumably, require time or/and space to exist in so that would require another 3 dimensions. Most of the 'extra' dimensions in M-Theory (ie 5-10) and postulated to be tightly 'curled' and not detectable in our 4-D spacetime and dimension 11 is the one in which the individual membranes (universes) move.
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
The problem there is that if God were, say, some being in the 11th Dimension of a multiverse that conformed to M-Theory (11-D string theory) then he would, presumably, require time or/and space to exist in so that would require another 3 dimensions. Most of the 'extra' dimensions in M-Theory (ie 5-10) and postulated to be tightly 'curled' and not detectable in our 4-D spacetime and dimension 11 is the one in which the individual membranes (universes) move. |
That's just the start of the problems with that mess. >_<
The whole concept of a dimension is that movement in one dimension is independent of movement in the other dimensions. i can theoretically travel an infinite distance in any of the three spatial dimensinons without affecting the other two, or time. i can also travel infinitely along the time dimension without moving in space.
If you talk about a giant slug or invisible pink unicorn or whatever that only exists in the (say) 11th dimension, then it by definition cannot affect the other 10 dimensions. And if it can affect the other 10 dimensions, then it necessarily exists in them. And if giant slug or IPU can affect our three temporal and one spatial dimension, then it can be observed by us. And affected. And, potentially, controlled. Such a being could not be God.
Even more damning, those "higher" dimensions are still part of the universe. If God existed "before" the universe and created it... he can't be in it. He has to exist outside of it. Thus he can't be in the 11th dimension. Or the fifth. Or the eighth.
But... once again... none of this is science. -_- It's all philosophy.
| Indi wrote: |
|
That's just the start of the problems with that mess. >_< |
| Quote: |
|
Even more damning, those "higher" dimensions are still part of the universe. If God existed "before" the universe and created it... he can't be in it. He has to exist outside of it. Thus he can't be in the 11th dimension. Or the fifth. Or the eighth. |
| Quote: |
|
But... once again... none of this is science. -_- It's all philosophy. |
Agreed
Chris.
| Indi wrote: |
|
Even more damning, those "higher" dimensions are still part of the universe. If God existed "before" the universe and created it... he can't be in it. He has to exist outside of it. Thus he can't be in the 11th dimension. Or the fifth. Or the eighth. But... once again... none of this is science. -_- It's all philosophy. |
Does not m-theory (string theory) postulate that the laws of physics as we know them break down in the higher dimensions , making the impossible possible ?
| tumbleweed wrote: | ||
Does not m-theory (string theory) postulate that the laws of physics as we know them break down in the higher dimensions , making the impossible possible ? |
Irrelevant. If God "created" the universe, he must exist outside of it (unless you believe that he is part of the universe, and hence created with it). Even if the laws of physics don't apply at dimension 7, who cares if God is not there?
i am a science student (intermediate in science) , even then i think god exist.what make's me think this is exceptions.we have exceptions in every scientific topic.there is no such law that holds true for everything .
| gaurav.baral1 wrote: |
| i am a science student (intermediate in science) , even then i think god exist.what make's me think this is exceptions.we have exceptions in every scientific topic.there is no such law that holds true for everything . |
Just because there are things that science cannot yet explain, that does not mean that these are evidence for a god. All that means is that science has not yet ruled out the possible existence of a god. Science has also not ruled out the possible existence of unicorns, gremlins, dragons, Superman, the Matrix, hobbits, smurfs or the One Ring to rule them all. But none of those are worthy of being discussed in a science forum, now are they? (Unless, i suppose, you would want to try and amuse yourself by attemping to PCR how they work.)
In point of fact, nothing in science can ever be evidence for a god. If you want to try to prove or disprove the existence of god rationally you have to use philosophy. If you want to try to prove the existence of god by other, non-rational means, you're in the realm of religion. And lo. We have a forum called "Philosophy and Religion". But this ain't it.
Yes,i think god does exist.even though there is not strong evidence to proove it but we can feel his presence around us.we have a strong belief also can take a consideration whenever any doctor goes for surgery he makes a prayer also in his clinic or hospital some spiritual posters are kept.so i can say that there god exist.still we can fined some othere reasion to say there god exists.
| Physicist wrote: |
| Hi ppl,
what do u think does god exist? I think God should exist. I dont believe that any creation is possible whithout creator. |
Yes Yes Yes God must exist ,, a fast look for our life will give you the complete evidence for the existance of God
When a baby born , examining its genetic construction ,which gives him its unique type , shows a complex process which can not be created at random way without a brave creator a large number of reasons tells you that God exist , Dont think about God itself but think in his great creations to not to get lost and go to a way with no end
| ramadangroup wrote: |
|
Yes Yes Yes God must exist ,, a fast look for our life will give you the complete evidence for the existance of God When a baby born , examining its genetic construction ,which gives him its unique type , shows a complex process which can not be created at random way without a brave creator a large number of reasons tells you that God exist , Dont think about God itself but think in his great creations to not to get lost and go to a way with no end |
I disagree, if a whole planet of organisms were created at random, only the ones fit to survive their environment would live long enough to procreate, then any weak resulting offspring would be removed from the gene pool and the strong would continue to live and contribute to the gene pool. Therfor living creatures are chosen by the environment. Guess you could call the environment the creator.
All I really know is that if there is a God, it wouldn't be a God like certain religions state. It wouldn't be a super natural humanoid who is all knowing and such.
If I had make a guess for the existance of a supreme infinite being (aka God) I would have to say one doesn't exist.
It's that simple.
Since mankind obviously doesn't know very much to be true or false in any ultimate sense, this whole discussion seems to be about speculation. When you gamble you can win or loose. The same is true with life. If you don't belive in God and you live a, what would be considered sinful life in His eyes, you will die gambling. If you are right nothing happens, if you are wrong you might burn in hell for eternity. Likewise if you follow God's law in this world, and you are right, you will be rewarded in the next and if you are wrong, nothing happens. Better safe than sorry.
| farmboyjoe wrote: |
| Since mankind obviously doesn't know very much to be true or false in any ultimate sense, this whole discussion seems to be about speculation. When you gamble you can win or loose. The same is true with life. If you don't belive in God and you live a, what would be considered sinful life in His eyes, you will die gambling. If you are right nothing happens, if you are wrong you might burn in hell for eternity. Likewise if you follow God's law in this world, and you are right, you will be rewarded in the next and if you are wrong, nothing happens. Better safe than sorry. |
aka Pascal's wager... and, no, it's not that simple.
And... yet again... this has nothing to do with science. Pascal's wager is a philosophical argument. If the topic about Adam being the first human doesn't belong in the science and nature forum, why does this one?
| Indi wrote: | ||
aka Pascal's wager... and, no, it's not that simple. And... yet again... this has nothing to do with science. Pascal's wager is a philosophical argument. If the topic about Adam being the first human doesn't belong in the science and nature forum, why does this one? |
I agree - this is definitely a posting which should be in religion and philosophy section.
Chris
Everything will exist when you believe its existence. So does god exist? Depend on your believe, if you believe God existence, then God exists.
The problems arise when two believes meet together. Even worse when one believe monopolize a community such as country for example. It will force or make sure his believe has followers.
The problems arise when two believes meet together. Even worse when one believe monopolize a community such as country for example. It will force or make sure his believe has followers.
Why is this thread still open? God is a religions topic, not science topic and there is already a God thread in the religion and philosophy forum.
i believe in evolutionary creationism. Evolution is a vaild theory, but it had to be started by a higher power.
I love this question specially from a scientific point of view. What is even more interesting is all the different views you get. You have to shake your head sometimes but that’s alright its good for you. Don’t believe God can be proven or disproved. Some people see it as made up figment of someone’s imagination. We can look at the creation model and see the similarities between everything and wonder why it all looks the same. I mean from the universe to the atomic structure it all seems to have the same designer and draw a different conclusion.
I have to say though that I know that God exists period. The only way to really experiment would be to apply the same principal with other things hidden from us. Communicate sincerely somehow. Then see if you get a response. Trust me it works.
I have to say though that I know that God exists period. The only way to really experiment would be to apply the same principal with other things hidden from us. Communicate sincerely somehow. Then see if you get a response. Trust me it works.
| warallthetm wrote: |
| i believe in evolutionary creationism. Evolution is a vaild theory, but it had to be started by a higher power. |
I cannot see how you can be an evolutionary creationist since it seems to me to be a contradiction in terms...evolution is a non-directed natural process, creationism is a divinely directed supernatural process.
If you believe that God just kicked off evolution by creating the first single-cell organisms then the question would have to be what happened to the 'made in his image' theology? This would, of course, also fundamentally contradict much of the scripture that most creationists of my acquaintance hold to.
If, on the other hand, you think that God created man roughly as he is now and then let evolution take over, then you cannot be described as an evolution supporter because evolution theory specifically contradicts that particular thesis.
Occam's Razor would also need consideration here....the fewest steps is the best solution...if evolution is in progress anyway then introducing a creator is an unnecessary extra step to produce the same output.....
I guess it depends on your defn of God.
Do I believe in a Roman Catholic God... no. I have a challenge believing in something that is supported by corruption and the abuse of children without punishment.
I believe in what I believe and it does involve a 'greater spirit' but it isnt one that requires weekly payments nor does it require me to kiss someone's (a PERSON) ring LOL.
I think we need to get back to the basics and forget about followers of a book that has been interpreted in so many ways that humans feel compelled to kill eachother over the interpretation and who is better than whom.
gotta love hate and money and corruption....
I prefer a simple life and no I am not a hippy nor grass smoker LOL
Do I believe in a Roman Catholic God... no. I have a challenge believing in something that is supported by corruption and the abuse of children without punishment.
I believe in what I believe and it does involve a 'greater spirit' but it isnt one that requires weekly payments nor does it require me to kiss someone's (a PERSON) ring LOL.
I think we need to get back to the basics and forget about followers of a book that has been interpreted in so many ways that humans feel compelled to kill eachother over the interpretation and who is better than whom.
gotta love hate and money and corruption....
I prefer a simple life and no I am not a hippy nor grass smoker LOL
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
I cannot see how you can be an evolutionary creationist since it seems to me to be a contradiction in terms...evolution is a non-directed natural process, creationism is a divinely directed supernatural process. If you believe that God just kicked off evolution by creating the first single-cell organisms then the question would have to be what happened to the 'made in his image' theology? This would, of course, also fundamentally contradict much of the scripture that most creationists of my acquaintance hold to. If, on the other hand, you think that God created man roughly as he is now and then let evolution take over, then you cannot be described as an evolution supporter because evolution theory specifically contradicts that particular thesis. Occam's Razor would also need consideration here....the fewest steps is the best solution...if evolution is in progress anyway then introducing a creator is an unnecessary extra step to produce the same output..... |
You know, i've been thinking about this and i'm not sure i totally agree.
To the point of Occam's Razor, yes, that's true. Can't really argue that. ^_^;
But on the other hand, if you do want to assume a god, i don't think that creationism and evolution are necessary exclusive - provided you use a watered down form of creationism that doesn't include spontaneous generation of species.
Start with an almost deist concept of God; the clockmaker hypothesis. But add omniscience, so that God knows how the events he's setting in motion will turn out. So God writes the rules, lines up the dominoes, then starts the first one falling, knowing even then how it's all going to turn out. He designs the proto-universe in such a way that, left to its own devices, it will automatically create the "in his image" beings he wants, then throws the switch to set off the Big Bang.
That way, although everything was preordained, it did indeed happen via the mechanisms of evolution. You can have "made in his image" and evolution at the same time.
Of course, you get the usual jumble of problems related to free will and whatnot, but that's for another forum.
| Indi wrote: |
| You know, i've been thinking about this and i'm not sure i totally agree.
To the point of Occam's Razor, yes, that's true. Can't really argue that. ^_^; But on the other hand, if you do want to assume a god, i don't think that creationism and evolution are necessary exclusive - provided you use a watered down form of creationism that doesn't include spontaneous generation of species. Start with an almost deist concept of God; the clockmaker hypothesis. But add omniscience, so that God knows how the events he's setting in motion will turn out. So God writes the rules, lines up the dominoes, then starts the first one falling, knowing even then how it's all going to turn out. He designs the proto-universe in such a way that, left to its own devices, it will automatically create the "in his image" beings he wants, then throws the switch to set off the Big Bang. That way, although everything was preordained, it did indeed happen via the mechanisms of evolution. You can have "made in his image" and evolution at the same time. Of course, you get the usual jumble of problems related to free will and whatnot, but that's for another forum. |
I can agree that this works logically. The only problem I see with this model is the old razor objection but I guess that could be solved only by showing that there is some divergence between the universe that occurred when the switch was flipped and a universe that would have occurred 'naturally'....that is, as I see it, well beyond our current abilities so the point must remain moot for the present.
Chris.
Related topics
 |