|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
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: |