Okay with some religious topics around here I thought I'd make an other one so the point of this is, the point is:
1. Determine if there is/are a god(s)
If we succeed at determing if there is a god we go on to:
2. Determine wich religion is right wishfull thinking
So post the evidence that there is a god right here: 
Rules: we are currently at step 1 attacking people that they are going to hell does not belong here, post things that are relevant.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Wed May 28, 2008 7:21 am; edited 1 time in total This has got to be the most pointless topic ever. You can't prove there is a God, that would defeat the whole purpose of having faith. How old are you seriously? Do you know anything about God?
| coolclay wrote: |
| This has got to be the most pointless topic ever. You can't prove there is a God, that would defeat the whole purpose of having faith. How old are you seriously? Do you know anything about God? |
There is no point in attacking me, look a bith further than your nose long is, How old are you? Seriously.
The point is to show why I don't believe in god, some other people just don't seem to understand that I don't because that there is no evidence. That's the point, if no evidence is posted then this topic has made it's point, don't make sucha fuss.....
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:42 am; edited 1 time in total | coolclay wrote: |
| This has got to be the most pointless topic ever. You can't prove there is a God, that would defeat the whole purpose of having faith. How old are you seriously? Do you know anything about God? |
FYI, not everyone believes that you can't prove a god exists. Many people believe there is already proof of a god, and faith is not necessary. They are called non-agnostics (people who believe you can't prove a god exists - like you, apparently - are called agnostics).
You should really get out and read more before insulting people. Klaw 2 knows what he or she is talking about. i'm agnostic, so i don't believe he can accomplish 1 (or 2), but i'm curious to see if any non-agnostics can do it. | Indi wrote: |
| Many people believe there is already proof of a god, and faith is not necessary. They are called non-agnostics |
I honestly did not know that. Thanks, Indi. I'd always assumed that the antonym of "agnostic" could be applied to anyone who believes in a god.
Respectfully,
M | Moonspider wrote: |
I honestly did not know that. Thanks, Indi. I'd always assumed that the antonym of "agnostic" could be applied to anyone who believes in a god.
Respectfully,
M |
Yes, this comes up fairly frequently in different guises - largely because of lazy usage in the media (including the web).
It's probably worth repeating the definitions that I (and Indi) occasionally put out to clarify.
Theist - One who believes in God(s).
Deist - one who believes in a creator God but doesn't believe that God takes an active part in the universe (ie no miracles etc).
Atheist (Nontheist) - One who does not believe in God(s). Often taken incorrectly to mean one who asserts that there is no God (strong atheist or non-agnostic atheist)
Agnostic - One who holds that the existence of God(s) cannot be proven
You can be an agnostic theist, deist, or atheist.
(Many people, including me, would argue that a large proportion of the Church of England congregation and clergy are agnostics and a suprisingly high number of those are atheists 
) | Bikerman wrote: |
| Atheist (Nontheist) - One who does not believe in God(s). Often taken incorrectly to mean one who asserts that there is no God (strong atheist or non-agnostic atheist) |
(Technically just strong atheist. You can be an agnostic strong atheist - "i believe that no god(s) exist(s), but i don't believe that can be proven" - or a non-agnostic strong atheist - "i believe that no god(s) exist(s), and i believe that can be proven".
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Agnostic - One who holds that the existence of God(s) cannot be proven |
Well, to cover all of your bases you should say "existence or non-existence".
And let's not be unfair to the many different flavours of agnosticism. ^_^
Strong agnostic: "i don't believe it will ever be possible to prove a god does or does not exist."
Weak agnostic: "i don't believe it is possible to prove a god does or does not exist today, but it may be possible someday."
Non-agnostic: "i believe it is possible to prove a god does or does not exist."
Collect them all and mix and match. ^_^Yep - correction accepted
(Still won't mean that anyone uses the terms correctly, but, hell, we tried ) http://doesgodexist.com
Some interesting reading from a former atheist's point of view...he is also a physicist.
I find it interesting to think about the beginning of the universe, it would be easy to hold the notion that matter has always existed, however through time we can see that galaxies are moving away from each other, and therefore had to start from a single point to expand from. The atheist's notion that the universe has just always existed is blown apart by this type of study because the universe is expanding and from what we know of the Laws of Physics, when something is in motion it is because it has been set in motion..it can't always have been in motion. Theoretically if the universe had always existed and was never created then all of our knowledge of Physics is wrong.
It's an interesting website for anybody who is interested, it definitely made me stop and think...though trying to think about things this vast in size and scope is mind-boggling to say the least because there is no way, with our current grasp of time-space, we could even think for a second that we actually know what is going on.
I personally believe other dimensions exist in the time-space continuum and it is possible that matter was created from that dimension, though I have a very hard time grasping the idea that an omnipotent being sits around and judges us all day and night, I can't totally rule it out because of our lack of knowledge as humans. | jsk02a wrote: |
| Some interesting reading from a former atheist's point of view...he is also a physicist. |
He's no physicist - he did an undergrad course101 in Astronomy. Big Deal.
The articles are full of nonsense, pseudo-science and misrepresentations of proper scientists and real science. It's a crock.Who is John Clayton?
| Quote: |
| A devout atheist until his early twenties, Clayton was part of the same organized atheist group that made Madeline Murray O'Hair famous. He decided to write a book called All the Stupidity of the Bible, but instead found himself slowly becoming convinced about Christianity. Today, he travels the U.S. giving some 40 lectures per year on the subject "Does God Exist?" He is a teacher and geologist by profession. He holds a B.S. degree from Indiana University in education with a concentration in physics and mathematics. He holds a M.S. degree from Indiana University in education with a concentration in chemistry and psychometry. He also holds a M.S. degree from the University of Notre Dame in geology and earth science. His most recent honors include: Distinguished Physics Teacher for the State of Indiana--1985 by the American Association of Physics Teachers; S.T.A.R Instructor for Indiana Department of Public Instruction--1990; South Bend Community School Corporation High School Teacher of the Year and School Corporation Teacher of the Year--1991. |
So I was wrong, he is a teacher and geolgist by profession but by no means "took an Astronomy 101" class in college.
...and if you could provide a more valid argument over why his articles are a "crock" as you say, I would be glad to read it. OK, no problem. Let's start with his 'proof of God'.
Firstly his stated aims: | Quote: |
| The purpose of this brief study is to offer a logical, practical, pragmatic proof of the existence of God from a purely scientific perspective |
OK - so a scientific proof of God then? Should be interesting....
Here we go... | Quote: |
| Most atheists maintain that there was no beginning. The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to form, but it has always been. |
Complete lie. Most atheists I know accept the BB theory which states that the observable universe came into being about 13.7 billion years ago. We don't know what happened before the BB (yet). | Quote: |
| Throughout the cosmos there are 25 quintillion stars, each converting hydrogen into helium, thereby reducing the total amount of hydrogen in the cosmos. Just think about it! If everywhere in the cosmos hydrogen is being consumed and if the process has been going on forever, how much hydrogen should be left? |
Who says the process has being going on forever? Nobody, that's who. Stars did not 'fire up' until millions of years after BB. Even if hydrogen is being consumed at an enourmous rate there is a LOT of it, but in fact it is not being 'consumed' it is being fused into helium atoms with photons given off (ie no energy/matter is being destroyed).
Next he quotes Sagan out of context | Quote: |
| If the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be," as Dr. Carl Sagan was so fond of saying |
(Implying that Sagan was saying that the universe had no beginning, which, being a qualified physicist he obviously wasn't).
Next we get the same theme (he actually only has one idea - the idea of eternal mass/energy - and keeps repeating it ad nauseum). | Quote: |
| The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong. The biblical assertion that there was a beginning is scientifically correct. |
There are several scientific theories about the origin of the BB singularity. Virtual Particles from the vacuum, a quantum fluctuation in 'nothingness' and so on. There is also the emerging Brane theory which seeks to explain our universe as one of a number of membranes which collide to form new universes. This is well beyond this joker, though.
He totally neglects to mention that not only does the bible say there was a beginning - it gives a specific timescale and a specific order of creation, which is so unscientific and mickey-mouse it isn't worth spending time on here.He says that matter/energy is not eternal and I suppose that means that God created it all, out of nothing. Ermm...is that supposed to be more logical or more scientific as he claims? LOL
Next he repeats (yet again) the same stuff | Quote: |
| From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem. In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry |
For someone who claims to have taught physics he appears to know bugger-all physics. He obviously hasn't come across virtual particles, vacuum energy, quantum fluctuations etc. Presumably he doesn't count 'God' as 'some strange new process' and thinks that God is a more scientific explanation?
Guess what's next...yup | Quote: |
| The atheist's assertion that matter is eternal is wrong. |
So how is matter/energy destroyed then? He just told us in the last para that matter and energy cannot come out of nothing and is conserved. Now he's saying the opposite.
Next he tells a downright lie | Quote: |
| The basic thrust of the anthropic principle is that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life. |
Completely untrue. The anthropic principle basically states that since we are alive then we observe a universe that can support life. If the universe could not support life then we wouldn't be here to see it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
In short he's a dishonest idiot. Excellent rebuttal. I'm not claiming that he is right, never did. I just said it was interesting...I majored in English Lit & Politics, therefore I lack the technical knowledge to find his flaws...I just find that he has an interesting theory to offer...and he is an educated man.
The point is, there is no sound proof on either side of the coin.
Thank you for the dissection, though. | jsk02a wrote: |
| Excellent rebuttal. I'm not claiming that he is right, never did. I just said it was interesting...I majored in English Lit & Politics, therefore I lack the technical knowledge to find his flaws...I just find that he has an interesting theory to offer...and he is an educated man. |
One does not need a scientific background to pick up the stink in that essay. Bikerman already mentioned the contradiction about conservation of matter and "eternal" matter. You don't need to know the math to know that when someone says "matter cannot be created or destroyed" in one breath and "matter is not eternal" in the other something is fishy.
And of course, good critical practice - science or not - involves checking the sources. Well, he only gives like three references, and they're all books with no pages sourced or anything. Not the most honest way to reference a work, but let's let that slide for the moment... because one of those sources is available online: the Humanist Manifesto.
So, how does he reference the Humanist Manifesto? Like this: "The Humanist Manifesto says, "Matter is self-existing and not created," and that is a concise statement of the atheist's belief." The only problem is... that is not what the Humanist Manifesto says. It says: "FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created." [Emphasis added by me.] (Note that he also snipped the bit that says, "Religious humanists regard... as", and tries to pass off the (false) quote as being held by all humanists, and - bizarrely and even more dishonestly - all atheists (atheist ≠ humanist).)
In other words, our friend here has dishonestly revised his sources. He is, in short, a liar.
(And to put his blatant dishonesty in perspective, he has quoted exactly two non-Biblical sources. The Humanist Manifesto quote i deconstructed - quoted twice - and the Sagan quote Bikerman has already explained is out of context. (And bizarrely interpreted... how does the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be" lead to the cosmos is perfect ("nothing could be added to it to improve its order or repair it")? That's just a bizarre leap in logic.) That means that two for two - 100% - of non-Biblical quotes are easily demonstrated as falsified (or at least misinterpreted). That's just... horrible. ^_^; )
| jsk02a wrote: |
| The point is, there is no sound proof on either side of the coin. |
A dishonest claim.
The side that claims there is no god cannot now or ever provide proof of that claim. They can provide evidence - and they have provided libraries full of that (evidence that the universe works fine without a god, and that there is no sign of one). But they can never prove a god does not exist. (This has nothing to do with them, or with the properties of a god. The plain fact is you can never prove a negative claim. Try to prove Bugs Bunny does not exist. You'll find that you can't. The best you can do is provide strong evidence. Never proof.)
The side that claims there is a god can provide proof... but has not. They haven't even done very well with evidence so far - almost all of their evidence is the same logical fallacy: the god-of-the-gaps fallacy (we don't know how - for example - matter was created, therefore God did it (and yes, i know we do know how matter was created, i was just using a relevant example, because that guy makes that same fallacy in his essay)).
So what we have here is an asymmetric problem. One side cannot provide proof (it is an impossible request). The other side can, but has not, and thus claims both sides are on equal footing. That is dishonest.
Of course, as far as evidence goes, there are billions of quality data of evidence that there are no gods, and few quality data (if any, because i can't think of any) that there are gods. There's no symmetry there at all. | Indi wrote: |
| Of course, as far as evidence goes, there are billions of quality data of evidence that there are no gods, and few quality data (if any, because i can't think of any) that there are gods. There's no symmetry there at all. |
Thank you, you made my point for me. There is no proof on either side, I didn't say there had to be proof. Quality data of evidence? I'm sure the Grecians thought they had quality data too...now we laugh at all their explanations for how the world worked when attributed to gods.
I'm sure when people thought the earth was flat and was the center of the universe, they had quality data of evidence about that too, until somebody showed the PROOF they were wrong.
Who are we to think we know anything about anything, especially anything about the future capabilities of mankind?
My belief is that "God" is a tool developed by primitive man to explain the things that were happening around him, and it evolved into a tool (a very dull but effective tool) to be used to control ignorant people. I never claimed to be a "believer", I merely said that I do believe other dimensions exist other than our own. | jsk02a wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Of course, as far as evidence goes, there are billions of quality data of evidence that there are no gods, and few quality data (if any, because i can't think of any) that there are gods. There's no symmetry there at all. |
Thank you, you made my point for me. There is no proof on either side, I didn't say there had to be proof. Quality data of evidence? I'm sure the Grecians thought they had quality data too...now we laugh at all their explanations for how the world worked when attributed to gods. |
I presume you mean the ancient Greeks? They didn't really do science - more philosophy. The point is that there is no way to demonstrate that God does not exist but there are plenty of ways to demonstrate that he/she/it DOES exist. As Indy said, you can't prove that Bugs Bunny does not exist but I doubt you would go from there to saying there is an equal chance he does or does not exist. In fact it is quite likely that the men in white coats would pay a visit if you kept insisting that not only did Bugs exist but he had instructed you to sanctify the carrot, resist the temptations of the evil Elmer Fudd, and look forward to eternity in a cartoon carrot-patch. | Quote: |
| I'm sure when people thought the earth was flat and was the center of the universe, they had quality data of evidence about that too, until somebody showed the PROOF they were wrong. |
Most educated people knew the world was not flat (since the time of the Greeks). The Greeks also knew that the earth was not the centre of the 'universe' - that notion is largely a religious one.
The point is that modern scientific theory is not normally shown to be significantly wrong, since it is based on experimental or observational data. What tends to happen is that a new paradigm arises which includes the results of previous work and expands to cover more cases or a wider range of observation/experimental data. Think of Einstein superceding Newton - Newton's laws of motion still work perfectly well - unless you start travelling really fast - then you need Relativity.
Thus it is with theory such as evolutionary theory, Big Bang theory and the like. The theories are always work in progress - they are constantly being refined and added to by new generations of scientists - but it is very unlikely that the basic theory is fundamentally wrong. | Quote: |
| Who are we to think we know anything about anything, especially anything about the future capabilities of mankind? |
We know quite a lot about quite a lot. There is (and probably always will be) more to know, which is a good reason to keep looking for answers and not just simply say 'God did it'. | jsk02a wrote: |
| Thank you, you made my point for me. There is no proof on either side, I didn't say there had to be proof. |
Oh, but there does.
You see, there is a concept in science and philosophy called parsimony - commonly referred to as "Ockham's Razor" (although, most people don't really understand what Ockham's Razor really is, and they generally get it wrong, so i avoid using the term). Parsimony states that you should not make unnecessary assumptions. This is a fundamental component of all science and philosophy, and pretty much all thought in general - nothing would make sense without it. You can read up on parsimony to find out why it's so fundamental and so important.
Now, according to parsimony, we should not assume that a god might exist unless we have some reason for making that assumption. Once upon a time - let's say up to around half a millenium ago - that was a somewhat reasonable assumption to make because there was simply too much that seemed to be going on that couldn't be explained using any knowledge available at the time, or even any reasoning available at the time. It was quite literally so far beyond any conception they were capable of at the time, that assuming a god made sense, more or less. Nowadays, we are a far more mature civilization. We know a lot, but more importantly, we understand the limitations of what we know - in other words, we know what we don't yet know. We know enough about the universe to know that there simply isn't a rational reason to presume a god any more. That doesn't mean we've figured everything out, it just means we've come to a point that we don't need that crutch any more. (Think of it this way: A beginning bike rider needs training wheels just to stay upright. After enough familiarity with the bike he or she doesn't need those training wheels any more. Does that mean they are now master bike riders, ready for stunt competitions or to take on the Tour de France? Hardly. They're still intermediate riders, but they've moved beyond training wheels at least.)
In order to justify an assumption that gods exist at this point in time, you actually need a reason for that assumption. No longer is it acceptable by default because we understood far too little to get by without it. But no one, anywhere, any time in the modern age, has come up with a valid reason to assume gods exist. The best they have done is repeat a very old fallacy called the "god-of-the-gaps" fallacy. The irony is that you mock that very fallacy while attempting to undermine science... then turn around and make it yourself - and you are not alone in doing this, not by a long-shot. Everyone that says "science is lame because they once thought the stars were points of light put there by the gods (for example, or the Earth was flat, or whatever)", then turns around says "that's why i believe in a god, because science does not have all the answers" is really making a peculiarly bizarre logical hiccup ("they were wrong to do X, so i'm going to do X").
| jsk02a wrote: |
| Quality data of evidence? I'm sure the Grecians thought they had quality data too...now we laugh at all their explanations for how the world worked when attributed to gods. |
For starters, as Bikerman has already mentioned, the Ancient Greeks did not do science. No one did science until Newton, more or less - Isaac Newton pretty much invented the scientific method (at the very least, he really laid the foundation we still build on today).
Furthermore, what little data the Ancient Greeks did collect was quality data. But you are misrepresenting their claims, and actually doing them a disservice. They never, ever, claimed to have evidence for the intervention of their gods in the world. That's what they believed, yes, but they never claimed they had evidence for it (and quite a few philosophers would have strongly disagreed with the claim). What they did claim to have was evidence of the existence of their gods - several philosophical arguments, in fact, that are still used today be supporters of gods. We now know those philosophical arguments are flawed - but as i said they are still used today... that's how good they are. And, at the same time, they also had data against the existence of gods (that still stands as valid today!), and what little "scientific" evidence they did bother to collect (they didn't believe in the scientific method, by and large, by dint of their philosophy) was all correct (and we still use huge chunks of it today). Don't try to play the Ancient Greeks as fools. Those guys were no intellectual slouches, and many could stand toe-to-toe with the best thinkers today, with only a very short primer to catch them up on the last two or three thousand years.
| jsk02a wrote: |
| I'm sure when people thought the earth was flat and was the center of the universe, they had quality data of evidence about that too, until somebody showed the PROOF they were wrong. |
That is also a misrepresentation. No one - going back to the time of the Ancient Greeks - believed the Earth was flat (except during the Dark Ages, when the population was raised only on religious nonsense and had no scientific education at all - but even then, the educated members of society, including the church leaders, did not believe the Earth was flat).
And, on top of that, your claim is simply false. They did not have quality data that the Earth was flat. They had quality data that the Earth was not flat. In fact, they even knew exactly how big it was, to an astonishing degree of accuracy, estimated at around 5 to 10 percent max.
You will find that if you put serious effort into the task that it is exceptionally hard to find legitimate examples of quality evidence collected throughout history that has turned out to be simply flat out wrong. When evidence is properly collected, it is very hard to screw up completely. Every example you presented is not a case of bad evidence being collected or even of good evidence being used improperly - they are all cases where no evidence was collected at all, and answers were assumed based on other factors (for example, religious belief).
| jsk02a wrote: |
| Who are we to think we know anything about anything, especially anything about the future capabilities of mankind? |
We are a species that has gone from throwing our own feces around to sending probes to other planets in our solar system and taking the first steps to leaving our Earthly cradle; to formulating theories about the very nature of time and space and what might have happened before our universe existed; to reaching out to other civilizations that might exist out in the cosmos and listening for their replies; to attempting to construct societies and cultures based on enlightened, abstract principles of liberty and justice; and much, much, much more. To put things in perspective... we - as in us, us here on Frihost - are not the elite thinkers of our time. We're just a bunch of dudes brought together by the promise of free Internet hosting (!), and we are discussing concepts of the nature of our existence, and our relationship with the universe around us.
How can you seriously disparage that? ^_^; We're not perfect, sure, and as civilizations go you may argue that we're still adolescent... but i think it's pretty damn safe to say we're not children any longer. We are learning about our place in the cosmos, and starting to take responsibility for the impact we have on it. We are moving past our egocentric view of the universe and reaching out to other species and for knowledge and experiences that humble the hell out of us.
That's who we are.
| jsk02a wrote: |
| My belief is that "God" is a tool developed by primitive man to explain the things that were happening around him, and it evolved into a tool (a very dull but effective tool) to be used to control ignorant people. |
But here's the thing. Your belief is completely and totally arbitrary. Seriously, what research have you done to come to that conclusion? Have you studied comparative religions? The anthropology of the religion? The psychology of the religious mind? You'd really need to cover all of that and more to come that conclusion properly.
You're welcome to your belief, but if you want more than a belief - if you want quality data (which actually involves going out and seeking evidence, not just saying "well, this feels right to believe", which is how people come to believe things like flat Earth and so on), it's out there. This is a fairly new field of research, true, but so far the evidence is pretty strong that what you say is not true. This is why your examples of bad "quality data" fall flat - there is no data there. Real data, and real quality data, requires actually going out to verify a belief.Is there a God and if so what is the best religion?
Let’s do it in reverse. The right religion is the one you choose for you.
The word religion is ok but I feel a word more properly in line for this discussion is the word religiously. Religion is defined often as a belief in God. I do see how the two connect. Religions are often assumed to mean organizations or collections of people with a title that believe in something.
However for one moment, please, consider the word religiously. The word implies to have a belief, yes true but do something religiously is more appropriate here in order to understand this point. The point is even to think about a topic is an active journey that we are committed to. In plain words we do something religiously because we are drawn to it like we would be to a scientific question.
So regardless of a persons belief, anyone that has any kind of belief is practicing some kind of religious pursuit. Science is a journey religiously desired.
Ok, I hope that makes sense. Now let us both look at the question. Is there a God and can we prove it.
God by name is called creator. So lets look at the creation and scientifically examine it.
How are you with the big bang theory? Whether we look at the complete universe or into the realm of atom structure or anywhere in the scientific realm we will find one commonality. It is of the same design. You really have to be scientifically minded to appreciate that. Even in scientific circles however you will find people arguing and disputing theories and truths. This is normal and sometimes healthy but lets remember also there is always something that people can agree on.
To prove the existence of God one could say simply - "The universe and everything that exists has the same design qualities."
It also has an origin therefore at some point in time was created. Even the element of time itself would have a starting point. Since ever creation including ideas, theories, even pure thought has an owner and we can also conclude a beginning. A creator exists.
Now, the question is who, what, where, why and how? It is unending. That is what makes it so interesting, fun and is why I love science so much. I love sciences creator.
I love God!
I have roughly the same "beliefs" as Indi and Bikerman.
Nobody has proven god exists. So there is no reason why he would exist. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist, just that the chance that he does exist - out of pure coincidence - is infinitely small. So there is absolutely no reason to believe in something, every religion has an infinitely small chance of being correct.
Some comments for Bluedoll:
| Code: |
| So regardless of a persons belief, anyone that has any kind of belief is practicing some kind of religious pursuit. Science is a journey religiously desired. |
I don't understand how you reach this conclusion. I'm practising science, learning about it, so I can get a good job. I don't see how that is a religiously desired journey.
| Code: |
| How are you with the big bang theory? Whether we look at the complete universe or into the realm of atom structure or anywhere in the scientific realm we will find one commonality. It is of the same design. You really have to be scientifically minded to appreciate that. |
Could you explain where that same design is? I don't really see it. @ Indi I am a "he".
| Bluedoll wrote: |
Is there a God and if so what is the best religion?
Let’s do it in reverse. The right religion is the one you choose for you. |
I meant if we where able to conclude by evidence that one god is the reel one. If the back side of the moon said: Made by ALLAH inc. then we could safely conclude that Allah is the real god.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| The word religion is ok but I feel a word more properly in line for this discussion is the word religiously. Religion is defined often as a belief in God. I do see how the two connect. Religions are often assumed to mean organizations or collections of people with a title that believe in something. |
Religions ARE organizations of some sort.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| However for one moment, please, consider the word religiously. The word implies to have a belief, yes true but do something religiously is more appropriate here in order to understand this point. The point is even to think about a topic is an active journey that we are committed to. In plain words we do something religiously because we are drawn to it like we would be to a scientific question. |
and religiously is a mere adverb. Care to look it up? More about this ahead!
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| So regardless of a persons belief, anyone that has any kind of belief is practicing some kind of religious pursuit. Science is a journey religiously desired. |
... no. I don't BELIEVE in science, I ACCEPT it, since science presents FACTS that means that what I learn is no Religion. Where Gods have no evidence for their existance so gods NEED belief, while proof doesn't.
and i agree with:
| Stubru Freak wrote: |
| I don't understand how you reach this conclusion. I'm practising science, learning about it, so I can get a good job. I don't see how that is a religiously desired journey. |
Agreed...
It is not by religion that I seek the truth, it is by curiosity.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| Ok, I hope that makes sense. Now let us both look at the question. Is there a God and can we prove it. |
No it did not but now we are on-topic.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| God by name is called creator. So lets look at the creation and scientifically examine it. |
very well...
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| How are you with the big bang theory? Whether we look at the complete universe or into the realm of atom structure or anywhere in the scientific realm we will find one commonality. It is of the same design. |
| Stubru Freak wrote: |
| Could you explain where that same design is? I don't really see it. |
Agreed, here it goes wrong. How do you know it is by design? What design?
Your argument has a shaky foundation.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| You really have to be scientifically minded to appreciate that. Even in scientific circles however you will find people arguing and disputing theories and truths. This is normal and sometimes healthy but lets remember also there is always something that people can agree on. |
Well... yes... of course this is a bit of a generalization. In the scientific "areana" if one is presenting a new theory. This theory is then attacked by dozens of scientists. Most scientific time is dedicated to disproving theorys rather then proving them.
However it is rather silly to dispute gravity or evolution in the arena while not presenting any evidence. And most disputes are about changing theorys like adding mutation to darwins theory. Not that half the scientists are for and the other half is against. It's more like a small group (1 team of 10) against a large one (the rest). Who wants to add something. Of course there are new theorys like cold-fusion. Wich was wrong in the end.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| To prove the existence of God one could say simply - "The universe and everything that exists has the same design qualities." |
This is of course wrong. Lets look at the sun. It has no real design it's a mere big bal of stuff that has a fision/fusion (can't remember wich one at the moment). That goes for everything else, one could say that everything that exists is designed however this is mere speculation, according to the big bang theory, theorys about how solar-systems come to be etc., it is wrong. What is build by us is designed in some way. The rest is not, this is just ID.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| It also has an origin therefore at some point in time was created. Even the element of time itself would have a starting point. Since ever creation including ideas, theories, even pure thought has an owner and we can also conclude a beginning. A creator exists. |
Yes everything has an origin from the big bang. We know what happened 10^34 second after the big bang before that we don't know. We don't know if time existed before that. Maybe there's a big bang a big cruch after that and then again a big bang. And has always been like that. This is more plausible than some being somewhere that is good, and omnipotent. Created us 6000 years ago. Also if there is a beginning that does not mean there is a creator. It can be caused by something, like an explosion.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
Now, the question is who, what, where, why and how? It is unending. That is what makes it so interesting, fun and is why I love science so much. I love sciences creator.
I love God!
|
I don't love god
and if I said something wrong please correct me!
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Sat May 31, 2008 9:37 pm; edited 2 times in total | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| If the back side of the moon said: Made by ALLAH inc. then we could safely conclude that Allah is the real god. |
You're the ignorant one, fool. "Allah" is Arabic for "God", its referring to the same entity that Christians and Jews worship. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | If the back side of the moon said: Made by ALLAH inc. then we could safely conclude that Allah is the real god. |
You're the ignorant one, fool. "Allah" is Arabic for "God", its referring to the same entity that Christians and Jews worship. |
Sorry, but not knowing every language in the world doesn't make him a fool, and doesn't make his argument less valid. Attacking him on one word isn't intellectually fair at all.It's not about language; it's about facts. Maybe he should get his ass off websites like islamsucks.com (made up) and actually research some solid information. It's a bit like me saying, "atheists are all wrong, if I came from a monkey I would have a tail!"
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
It's not about language; it's about facts. Maybe he should get his ass off websites like islamsucks.com (made up) and actually research some solid information. It's a bit like me saying, "atheists are all wrong, if I came from a monkey I would have a tail!"
|
It doesn't matter. In a religious debate, you don't have to know the Arabic meaning of Allah. The English Allah refers to the Islamic god, and that's what he meant. Now reread his post and respond to his arguments, instead of one single, maybe misused, word. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | If the back side of the moon said: Made by ALLAH inc. then we could safely conclude that Allah is the real god. |
You're the ignorant one, fool. "Allah" is Arabic for "God", its referring to the same entity that Christians and Jews worship. |
You're the ignorant one, fool. It is not about the meaning of the word. You know very wel what I mean. If I said made by "God" the same I would have to look up some name of a god that has no is not for 2 different gods. And if I said thor maybe someone doesn't know him, if someone says Allah, in the western world it is a specific for the islamic god 99.9% of the time. If i were to say:
the islamic god that's abit long while:
allah is short.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
It's not about language; it's about facts. Maybe he should get his ass off websites like islamsucks.com (made up) and actually research some solid information. It's a bit like me saying, "atheists are all wrong, if I came from a monkey I would have a tail!"
|
I never have is specific dislike for islam or anything. I do research but I tend to make discussions as less complicated as possible. Besides that shows that you are a fool. I could now start bitching by saying: Not all Atheists believe in evolution theory don't only visit atheismsucks.com and actually research some so...
I understand what you are saying really. I think you are merely distracting people from the original topic, really.
I detect 2 often used creationist "points" in this debate:
Ad hominum Argument; is attacking the opponent and not responding to his/her evidence.
Red herring; a point that is to distract the opponent, it has nothing to do with the argument.
(I also pasted a list of more in Indi's philosphy post, if (s)he is ever going to say something about discussions)
Nuff said. Say something on-topic. Send me in a message what other things I have said "wrong".
And say something about the arguments I gave.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 9:55 pm; edited 1 time in total | Bluedoll wrote: |
| Let’s do it in reverse. The right religion is the one you choose for you. |
That depends on what you mean by "right". If you mean factually correct, then what you say makes no sense. If you mean best suited for the purposes of improving your self-confidence and/or sense of inner peace, then maybe.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
The word religion is ok but I feel a word more properly in line for this discussion is the word religiously. Religion is defined often as a belief in God. I do see how the two connect. Religions are often assumed to mean organizations or collections of people with a title that believe in something.
However for one moment, please, consider the word religiously. The word implies to have a belief, yes true but do something religiously is more appropriate here in order to understand this point. The point is even to think about a topic is an active journey that we are committed to. In plain words we do something religiously because we are drawn to it like we would be to a scientific question.
So regardless of a persons belief, anyone that has any kind of belief is practicing some kind of religious pursuit. Science is a journey religiously desired. |
No.
The word "religiously" is (almost) always applied metaphorically, not literally. When you say a person pursues some goal religiously, or attends to some task religiously, you (almost) never mean that their dedication to the goal or task has anything whatsoever to do with religion. A person who religiously checks the sports scores every morning before leaving the house is not involved in some sports score checking religion. What you are doing when you say someone does something religiously is saying that they perform the task routinely despite the inconvenience it causes them (the metaphorical comparison is to religious rituals that must be observed regardless of the great inconvenience they cause to observe them).
So just because someone pursues science religiously does not make science their religion. Science is not a religion because it does not fit any of the reasonable definitions of religion. (Incidentally, sometimes "religion" is also applied metaphorically, but not very often, and it is always clear from the context whether the "religion" being talked about is actually a religion, or just a metaphor.)
So no, the word "religiously" has no business in this discussion.
(Technically the word "religion" does not belong either, but only in part 1. In part 2 it becomes important. The question of whether a god(s) exists or not has nothing to do with religion. It is a simple yes/no question that can be determined factually by evidence or reason. Yes, a lot of religions claim to have that answer already, but they are all wrong - because if they actually did have any evidence or logic, we wouldn't need to have this discussion asking for some.)
| Bluedoll wrote: |
Ok, I hope that makes sense. Now let us both look at the question. Is there a God and can we prove it.
God by name is called creator. So lets look at the creation and scientifically examine it.
How are you with the big bang theory? Whether we look at the complete universe or into the realm of atom structure or anywhere in the scientific realm we will find one commonality. It is of the same design. You really have to be scientifically minded to appreciate that. Even in scientific circles however you will find people arguing and disputing theories and truths. This is normal and sometimes healthy but lets remember also there is always something that people can agree on.
To prove the existence of God one could say simply - "The universe and everything that exists has the same design qualities." |
i can't make heads nor tails of this. i am very scientifically minded - maybe even to a fault - and i understand the structure of the atom better than most (and i'm not exactly clueless about the structure of the universe as a whole), and i haven't a clue what commonality you are talking about.
Furthermore, if a god exists, and if the universe as a whole is designed, then any appeal to "design qualities" is a circular argument. You can't say "this looks designed" unless you know what makes something that designed look different from something that is not designed. If we assume the universe was not designed, then we can pick anything natural and compare it to something designed by man... no problems there. But if we assume the universe is designed, then even "natural" things are designed, too, so if you try to compare something natural to something designed by man, you're just comparing two designed things, not one designed and one non-designed thing.
Furthermore, you've jumped the gun. Even if you could somehow prove the universe is designed, that does not follow that a god designed it. What if i invented a time machine, went back "before" the Big Bang, and set up everything - in other words, what if i designed the universe. It's not theoretically impossible, and we know i exist, so we're already one step ahead of a god. Some people would argue, "well then that makes you a god," but that's patent nonsense - the old Texas sharpshooter fallacy. If you prove the universe is designed, you have proved that a designer exists. You haven't yet proved a god does.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| It also has an origin therefore at some point in time was created. Even the element of time itself would have a starting point. Since ever creation including ideas, theories, even pure thought has an owner and we can also conclude a beginning. A creator exists. |
This is a circular argument. "The universe was created by something. Therefore, something created it." There are a large number of problems with it, starting with the fact that just because something has an origin, that does not mean that it was created (and finishing off with the fact that even if a creator existed, that does not imply the creator exists).
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| (I also pasted a list of more in Indi's philosphy post, if (s)he is ever going to say something about discussions) |
(Oh yes, i liked your suggestion. What has been holding me up is that i can't figure out how to change the poll.)
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| I meant if we where able to conclude by evidence that one god is the reel one. If the back side of the moon said: Made by ALLAH inc. then we could safely conclude that Allah is the real god. |
Indeed, most atheists really aren't asking for all that much. A god that created the universe should have little to no trouble giving us a pretty convincing sign that it exists - and no, a bizarre mystical text written over a thousand years ago is hardly a convincing sign. The arguments believers give for why this god won't or can't give us this sign are all depressingly weak.lol why try to believe the existence of a god, religion = believing in things that can 't be explained... if u can explain it then it would not exist any more.
for example = u can't proof that there arent any lepricorns, because if u can proof it it would mean that u would search everywhere at the same time and find one, but then why believe in them, then they just become a fact... science...
I don't like the idea that ppl try to determine what god is, read the bible / koran / tora... God is love, god is good that should be enough :p
| Poetsunited wrote: |
| if u can explain it then it would not exist any more. |
Err...what? I have a can of Coke in front of me. I explain this is a mixture of aluminum and other materials filled with a liquid beverage called Coca Cola.
I'm pretty sure my coke still exists =]My coke just disappeared!
I see what you mean but I don't see why we want to believe that something is true rather than knowing it.
I doubt anybody can prove there is a god
nor I doubt anybody can prove his or a relegion is true
but I have to say, that I think christianity (wich I'm part of by birth not choice) is a cult .....
like people donate money, and the leaders get richer ....
So I believe that christianity is a cult, but not only christianity, like islam ....
well tbh I don't believe in a god, nor do I believe in heaven or hell
I woul say if I have to choose to believe in something it will be reincarnation, but I don't know :s
| Poetsunited wrote: |
lol why try to believe the existence of a god, religion = believing in things that can 't be explained... if u can explain it then it would not exist any more.
for example = u can't proof that there arent any lepricorns, because if u can proof it it would mean that u would search everywhere at the same time and find one, but then why believe in them, then they just become a fact... science...
I don't like the idea that ppl try to determine what god is, read the bible / koran / tora... God is love, god is good that should be enough :p |
hmm well I take that you believe in a god.
And your point is true that when you don't find a lepricorn or you have no proof of it. It is still possible that it exists.
However if you go by that logic you will have to believe in everything, from the invisible pink unicorn and the fsm.
I someone try's to make me believe something like that I usually need proof.
For some people (according to the bible) there was proof that he existed because they could do awesome things.
However why don't we have any proof anymore? I don't need to find out that I can walk on water, "push" water aside so that I can walk on the ocean floor or anything. Something small, I mean how hard is that for an all knowing, omnipotent god?
as for the other point hbp made that clear for me:
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Poetsunited wrote: | | if u can explain it then it would not exist any more. |
Err...what? I have a can of Coke in front of me. I explain this is a mixture of aluminum and other materials filled with a liquid beverage called Coca Cola.
I'm pretty sure my coke still exists =] |
We can walk on water-like fluids! =D Maybe all Jesus did was adding corn starch to the lake!
| catscratches wrote: |
| We can walk on water-like fluids! =D Maybe all Jesus did was adding corn starch to the lake! |
In that case he had to run, because you have to run acros it if you walk you will still sink :p. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| catscratches wrote: | | We can walk on water-like fluids! =D Maybe all Jesus did was adding corn starch to the lake! |
In that case he had to run, because you have to run acros it if you walk you will still sink :p. |
He would have to get a lot of corn starch too. =P | catscratches wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | catscratches wrote: | | We can walk on water-like fluids! =D Maybe all Jesus did was adding corn starch to the lake! |
In that case he had to run, because you have to run acros it if you walk you will still sink :p. |
He would have to get a lot of corn starch too. =P |
What lake was it again? Maybe we can calculate it.After some research: Sea of Galilee.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Galilee
Water volume: 4 km³
EDIT: You need around as much corn starch as water, so around 4 km³ corn starch =)
It would explain why Petrus sunk! He stayed still! | catscratches wrote: |
After some research: Sea of Galilee.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Galilee
Water volume: 4 km³
EDIT: You need around as much corn starch as water, so around 4 km³ corn starch =)
It would explain why Petrus sunk! He stayed still! |
Well I found something different.
| mythbusters wrote: |
| By mixing 200 gallons of water with 1000 pounds of corn starch... |
1 gallon of water with 5 pounds of corn starch
3.785411784 litres = 3.785411784 dM³ = 3.785411784 *10^-3 M³ = 3.785411784 *10^-12 kM³
4kM³/3.785411784 *10^-12 kM³ = 1.05 * 10^12
aprox 1.05 * 10^12*5
So you need 5.28 * 10^12 Pounds of starch
wich is about 2.4 10^12 kilograms of starch. Thats 2.4 PETAgram. Really couldn't he just NOT do this fancy trick and feed the poor?
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 11:00 pm; edited 1 time in totalThat was the reason he had just two breads and a fish to feed the 5000 men who visited him on the mountain a bit earlier! =O
This is all making sense now!
Wel catscratch we should publish our findings, really it makes the bible better to understand,
But now seriuosly, no one has anything to add? Well really? I made my point then.
Of course if someone else has to post anything then i would be happy to reply.
lmao... i didn't know ur coke was a dogma, something u had to believe in in order to keep it alive... as soon as u can prove a dogma, its no longer a dogma, its science...
ur coke on the other hand, is already science :p so no it won't dissapear next time if u respond read better...
God can only exists in your mind if you believe. However, God is not so popular in China.
For several centuries before the 18th century, the existence of God posed no problem until the modern atheist with his NIetzsche and Feuerbach came around. As far as I know, it is the atheist who should show that God does not exist. Those pioneers of atheism did nothing but to kill God. Now they are deat but God still lives! The one who says there is no God should back it up, not just announce to everyone that he has killed God as Nietzsche did.
| mgeek wrote: |
| For several centuries before the 18th century, the existence of God posed no problem until the modern atheist with his NIetzsche and Feuerbach came around. As far as I know, it is the atheist who should show that God does not exist. Those pioneers of atheism did nothing but to kill God. Now they are deat but God still lives! The one who says there is no God should back it up, not just announce to everyone that he has killed God as Nietzsche did. |
That's where you're wrong. It's not because people were trained by the church to believe something for several centuries, that it's true. People believed so many things that science has already disproved, like that the earth is flat, that it's the centre of the universe, and that god has created the universe.
All that's left of your "god" is some really vague notion that's just not specific enough to disprove. You're saying that things exists that can't be seen, heard, felt, or by any means detected, except by "believing." Of course such a thing can't be disproved: not detecting it doesn't disprove it, as it's one of its properties. But as it's undetectable, you can't know it exists, so claiming it does, only because people told you so, is quite naive.
If you really think historical indoctrination makes something true, you could just as well worship Hitler or Stalin. | mgeek wrote: |
| For several centuries before the 18th century, the existence of God posed no problem until the modern atheist with his NIetzsche and Feuerbach came around. As far as I know, it is the atheist who should show that God does not exist. Those pioneers of atheism did nothing but to kill God. Now they are deat but God still lives! The one who says there is no God should back it up, not just announce to everyone that he has killed God as Nietzsche did. |
It is almost impossible to disprove the (un)existence of anything. If you don´t see it it still can be there, a theapot orbiting the sun won´t be seen by any of our fancy telescopes. However there is no evidence that that thea pot exists so I won´t claim there is one orbiting the sun until it is proven.
Religious people who believe in god and claim that he exists should bring evidence. Turning it around is unlogically and logically unfair. I could claim lord of the rings really happened and leave the disproving to other people. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
Religious people who believe in god and claim that he exists should bring evidence. Turning it around is unlogically and logically unfair. I could claim lord of the rings really happened and leave the disproving to other people. |
Oh cmon, you can't prove it can you? I rest my case. | mgeek wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
Religious people who believe in god and claim that he exists should bring evidence. Turning it around is unlogically and logically unfair. I could claim lord of the rings really happened and leave the disproving to other people. |
Oh cmon, you can't prove it can you? I rest my case. |
A very bad case.
YOU have to prove the existence of god because YOU claim it.
Claiming that people who don´t believe in god have to prove he exists is...
Turning it around is unlogically and logically unfair | mgeek wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
Religious people who believe in god and claim that he exists should bring evidence. Turning it around is unlogically and logically unfair. I could claim lord of the rings really happened and leave the disproving to other people. |
Oh cmon, you can't prove it can you? I rest my case. |
As I said before, you're saying that things exists that can't be seen, heard, felt, or by any means detected, except by "believing." Of course such a thing can't be disproved: not detecting it doesn't disprove it, as it's one of its properties.
It's like if I asked you to prove there are no invisible leprechauns. It's completely impossible, as even if you had camera's filming every part of the world and you didn't see them, that's logical as they are invisible. The same goes for god.
So if you do have any reason to believe it exists, it is up to you to say what that reason is. For example, if your reason is that you can see him with a telescope, you can tell us that and we can prove it's something else you're seeing.
But all reasons to believe in god have already been disproved.
You only believe in god because you are indoctrinated. | mgeek wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
Religious people who believe in god and claim that he exists should bring evidence. Turning it around is unlogically and logically unfair. I could claim lord of the rings really happened and leave the disproving to other people. |
Oh cmon, you can't prove it can you? I rest my case. |
Are you trying to be overly stubborn and silly?One thing striking me from the first page of this topic. | Bikerman wrote: |
Even if hydrogen is being consumed at an enourmous rate there is a LOT of it, but in fact it is not being 'consumed' it is being fused into helium atoms with photons given off (ie no energy/matter is being destroyed).
.....
In short he's a dishonest idiot. |
The word "consume" would be wrong? That seems a rather long shot at finding something to accuse him of just for the sake of accusing. Even though you found plenty other things
The hydrogen is consumed in the nuclear reaction because the H atoms no longer exist after having fused. It's the subatomary particles that are conserved. I don't mind the occasional strike at false statements (as you probably know by now) but this is ridiculous. | Arnie wrote: |
One thing striking me from the first page of this topic. | Bikerman wrote: | Even if hydrogen is being consumed at an enourmous rate there is a LOT of it, but in fact it is not being 'consumed' it is being fused into helium atoms with photons given off (ie no energy/matter is being destroyed).
.....
In short he's a dishonest idiot. |
The word "consume" would be wrong? That seems a rather long shot at finding something to accuse him of just for the sake of accusing. Even though you found plenty other things
The hydrogen is consumed in the nuclear reaction because the H atoms no longer exist after having fused. It's the subatomary particles that are conserved. I don't mind the occasional strike at false statements (as you probably know by now) but this is ridiculous. |
I don't think it is ridiculous. The clear implication in the article was that hydrogen is simply 'vanishing'. If you read on you will see that this is used as 'evidence' that the Sun must therefore be shrinking because of the mass lost.
OK, you can say that hydrogen is being destroyed and reformed into helium plus photons, I agree, and I should have made the point in more detail. | mgeek wrote: |
| For several centuries before the 18th century, the existence of God posed no problem until the modern atheist with his NIetzsche and Feuerbach came around. As far as I know, it is the atheist who should show that God does not exist. Those pioneers of atheism did nothing but to kill God. Now they are deat but God still lives! The one who says there is no God should back it up, not just announce to everyone that he has killed God as Nietzsche did. |
Are you serious? People who don't believe in God often back up that claim with serious evidence. It's just that Creationists come up with a new, ridiculous theory every other week and by the time scientists get around to debunking it, a new radical theory has come out. There are hundreds of papers, books, videos, etc. out there with loads of evidence against the existence of God. How are you going to claim that no one has backed up this claim? Besides, why should we have to back it up just for you? Klaw 2 made a nice point. Would it be reasonable for me to claim that a teapot orbits the sun and then expect you to spend your time debunking that? Why should I spend my precious time trying to debunk the existence of something that I don't even believe in and that has absolutely no effect in my life? That sounds pointless to me.
Also, by making that point, you are sounding like a hypocrite. I claim that God doesn't exist so I should have to come up with evidence for that? Do you believe that any of the following don't exist?
- Zeus
- Apollo
- Invisible Pink Unicorn
- Centaurs
- Dragons
- Tea pots orbiting the sun
- The Monster in the closet
Well what if I told you that I believe in every one of those? If you told me that you didn't believe in them, then by your logic, you'd have to spend your time debunking every single one of those. Have fun. | mgeek wrote: |
| For several centuries before the 18th century, the existence of God posed no problem until the modern atheist with his NIetzsche and Feuerbach came around. As far as I know, it is the atheist who should show that God does not exist. Those pioneers of atheism did nothing but to kill God. Now they are deat but God still lives! The one who says there is no God should back it up, not just announce to everyone that he has killed God as Nietzsche did. |
Everyone is born an atheist, no one is born religious. God is dead until he is introduced into a person's life. Therefore, it is the job of those who introduce God to back up their claims. Otherwise, don't introduce it.The funny bit of this discussion as always is the proof. Proofing God exists or that God does not exist. How would one do that? Is there a recipe of proving anything? I mean, we assume gravity exist and the proof? Well, throw an apple in the air and it will fall down. Sorry, but what did that really proof? What is basically proofs is that we need proof so hard that we would believe anything as long as it sounds remotely possible and the latter is really very personal I'd say. What this really should be about is to respect what people believe to think is true or not true. You can't judge over religion - whether it is a traditional God based religion or whether it is the modern religion: science.
| patmay wrote: |
| The funny bit of this discussion as always is the proof. Proofing God exists or that God does not exist. How would one do that? Is there a recipe of proving anything? I mean, we assume gravity exist and the proof? Well, throw an apple in the air and it will fall down. Sorry, but what did that really proof? What is basically proofs is that we need proof so hard that we would believe anything as long as it sounds remotely possible and the latter is really very personal I'd say. What this really should be about is to respect what people believe to think is true or not true. You can't judge over religion - whether it is a traditional God based religion or whether it is the modern religion: science. |
Boring argument =) | patmay wrote: |
| The funny bit of this discussion as always is the proof. Proofing God exists or that God does not exist. How would one do that? Is there a recipe of proving anything? I mean, we assume gravity exist and the proof? Well, throw an apple in the air and it will fall down. Sorry, but what did that really proof? What is basically proofs is that we need proof so hard that we would believe anything as long as it sounds remotely possible and the latter is really very personal I'd say. What this really should be about is to respect what people believe to think is true or not true. You can't judge over religion - whether it is a traditional God based religion or whether it is the modern religion: science. |
Nice speech but the point of this topic was to show why some people don't believe in god.
And science is not religion by default it is not.I posted about this in the Sticky. I could just paste the whole thing but idk if I should, it's pretty long. =p
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-815479.html#815479 I will post it here, cause i think it is more ontopic than in the other topic;
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
| I don't understand the arguement that people give when they say "There's no scientific proof of the existence of God." |
Cause there isn't not for creationism not for ghosts etc. etc.
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
| DO you even know what the Scientific Method is? |
Yes
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-76771.html
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
1.State a Problem
2.Develop a hypothesis
3.Test the hypothesis
4.Analyze the test data
5.Form a conclusion based on the analysis |
I will stay with this one;
| Bikerman wrote: |
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. |
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
| ...This form of proof/disproof doesn't fit nearly all circumstances, therefore you can't use science to prove or disprove everything, and the results from scientific study are not always conclusive. |
Yes but if you don't have evidence of something you shouldn't blindly conclude that something exists.
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
For example: When I was born, scientific studies suggested that laying an infant baby on it's stomach when they sleep was prefereable so the baby can't choke on itself if it spits up in the night... now, studies suggest that laying a baby on it's back is better so that it doesn't choke and smother itself on it's sheets... Science can't make up it's mind. Just add more data and the results might change again.
Eating raw eggs used to be deemed healthy as a good source of protein, then deemed unheathy because of salmanella, then deemed healthy again because salmanella from eggs is so rare and uncommon. Science can't make up it's mind. Just add more data and the results might change again. |
Yes adding more data a couple of decades ago there used to be no salmonella it apearred later that's why it changed. As for babys I don't have a clue.
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
| Also, we all know about the Theory of Gravity, and how it can be proved that objects with mass are attracted to other objects with mass, and the more mass an object has, the greater the pull it has on other objects around it. Now, can science tell us why? Why does gravity exist? Science can't explain that. |
We don't know what makes gravity work but they are working on that problem too.
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-97621.html
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
Also, the Third Law of Thermodynamics describes that in all the universe there is entropy (or chaos), and that entropy of any object or system increases over time. By this scientific theory, the universe and everything in it should destroy itself given enough time. On the other hand, the development and existence of life itself in any form, much less in intelligent form, contradicts this law. If there was no direction in the universe to create things as they are, how can life exist at all? How can stable matter exist at all instead of a universe of random particles? Again, science can't decide what is true or why.
|
... :/
don't know what you have been reading;
| wikipedia wrote: |
Third law of thermodynamics
As a system approaches absolute zero, all processes cease and the entropy of the system approaches a minimum value |
I don't see life/chaos or anything like that in it.
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
| ...My point is that science can't be the one and only method used to determine if there is a God, however I've heard it said that Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time" nearly confirms the existence of God, however unintentionally on Hawking's part, up until the final chapter of the book, where he hastely develops reasons why there couldn't be, as though he doesn't agree with his own research. |
The scientist: We don't how it works well be looking into it.
The religious guy: We don't how it works so god must have done it, see i got proof.
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
| As a popular author named Josh McDowell once wrote, you can't merely use some standard of scientific proof, you have to use legal evidence... evidence as one would use in a court proceding to prove or disprove a case. With this in mind, given all the eye-witness testimony thoughout the ages and the numerous written documents that complement each other on both the existence of God and the existence of Jesus Christ, there is more legally binding evidence to support that God exists and that Jesus Christ is God's Son (meaning a human incarnation of God Himself) than there is legal evidence to support that Socrates ever lived. |
Too bad it hasn't to be legal evidence, you pretend to understand the scientific method but you don't some far off eye-witness is not e realiable source.
Other scientists have to reproduce the experiment or able to see the same evidence. There is no expreiment or something like that, so it's a dead end.
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
| Now, back to the Intelligent Design theory that I was alluding to earlier... There has been evidence shown by scientists on the Discovery channel to support that if our planet Earth was not exactly as far away from the sun as it is, or didn't have exactly the orbit it does, or have exactly the size moon that it does (which by the way is huge for a planet our size, the moon is itself a quarter the size of Earth, where Jupiters moons are all tiny)... if all the things about the location, size, rotation, axis, and relative size to our moon didn't exist as they do, life on Earth would either be entirely different, and yet may not exist at all. |
Yes and Discovery Channal is part of some scientific preer-review magazine, o whait! It's not.
The universe is pretty big there are a lot of places and moments where "earth" could have been created, (although the chance that a planet like this one with all these surcomstances (getting here through all the process of stellar formation etc.) is not very big there is a chance and when there is one there is a possibility) and well a pretty big number times a pretty small one makes about 1.
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
| So, given that life itself contradicts known science |
no it doesn't
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
| , and that our planet is incredibly lucky to support life at all, given the remote circumstance that it could exist just how it does, under Occam's Razor, "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best one." The simplest solution here is that the universe was created by a being with an intelligent design in mind. |
You don't understand occam's Razor, it's not the point that the easiest thing that comes to mind be the explanation but you also have to take in all the evidence and assuming god exists is a pretty BIG assumption.
| wikipedia wrote: |
| The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. |
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
| Further, if a human being were to put alot of time and effort into creating something, or caring for it or making some sort of significant investment into something, then you can bet that person would be interested in how things turn out for that something they're invested in. By the same logic, if God were to create this universe, this planet and even us, you would bet that he ought to be interested in what happens, rather than just creating it all and never having any interest in whatever happens. |
Well yes he would to bad he lets all those people duying, really caring huh? And well we are assuming that he exists now. Occam anyone?
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
| So, God does exist because the universe has order and the planet has order and life itself is epitomy of order. |
You see order? And that is NOT proof.
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
| Futher, I submit that I believe God is perfect and holy in every way. Given that he is perfect and holy in every way and that we are, both individually and collectively, far from perfect... wouldn't that sort of disqualify us from being able to be near Him? If He is absoluetly pure and perfect, wouldn't our impure presence near to a being such as Him, by association lessen His apparent glory? |
Assuming he does exist and is perfect and all powerfull why does he let die horrific deaths? Why is there so much "evil" as you describe it?
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
| From that I would have to pose that when someone, such as ourselves, falls away from following Him and His perfect nature by sinning in some fashion... with God being so indescribably and unfathomably pure, perfect, holy and glorious, that whomever sins again him ought to be destroyed. It just would make sense. If you were incomprehensibly pure and perfect, would you want corruption surrounding you either? Probably not. So, someone who is corrupted by sin, no matter how small, ought to die. |
I stole an apple so i should die and burn in hell forver, nice god really he is perfect...
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
| Over 2,000 years ago, people used to sacrifice, or kill and burn on an altar, animals in place of themselves to pay for their sin. Then, a man was born... a perfect man. A man without sin. He never sinned. Not once. He, himself, was pure and perfect yet humble and modest. Yet, He was in effect sacrificed by being tortured and killed on a cross to pay for the sin of all mankind. That man is Jesus Christ. Not only did He die for our sin, but the Holy Spirit of God raised Him back to life and He left this world to be with God before He would ever die again. I know, I know... you're saying "how can you prove any of this Jesus stuff?" Well, using legal evidence of written documents and scrolls kept through the ages, we can show that there was more than a significant amount of eye-witness testimony to support that He did exist. Not only did He live on Earth, but He claimed to be God Himself on more than one occasion. |
Yes befoore the year 0 all humans were savages and the jesus came and nothing changed. People still behaved like savages. As for proof jesus existed well you have the bible and further well no other record you have some records but they could also talk about someone who wasn't jesus. You "LEGAL" evidence is not really proof, and presenting it as it is just useless.
| chyron_8472 wrote: |
If He was not God, as He clamied to be, then He either was lying or was insane. Wouldn't dying as a sacrifice for our sin then not make any difference? How can he even be a good man or a respectable prophet if He says that He's God if He isn't? He is God. When people refer to Jesus Christ as God's Son, they mean that He is a man who was born born to a human, concieved by the Holy Spirit of God Himself, and is both man and God in one form. The Trinity of God is just the ways in which God has been known to make Himself apparent to us, in the persons of God the Father, creator of the universe itself, God the Son, Jesus Christ who walked on Earth and is alive today, and the Holy Spirit of God who lives within the very lives and hearts of those who follow Him. These are seperate manifestations of God, yet all the same one being, just as ice, water and steam are all the same one chemical compound.
So, God does exist. He is pure, holy and perfect and we are not. Jesus Christ, the one perfect, sinless man died on a cross as a sacrifice for our sin against God, and He rose to life again, leaving this world before he would die again, which means He is still alive today in Heaven with God. All we really need to do to allow His sacrifice to apply to our individual lives is to acknowledge that it happened, ask Him to forgive us for our wrongdoing, and ask Him to send His Spirit, the same Holy Spirit of God that raised Christ from the dead, to come and live in our hearts. This doesn't mean we won't screw up again and again, but it does mean that when we repent of our screw ups (which means to turn away from them and endeavor to stop repeating them), and pray and ask for forgiveness, then we will truly be forgiven, and when we die and are then judged by God for our wrongdoing, He doesn't see our wrongs, but instead He sees the sacrifice that has already been paid in the person of Jesus Christ. |
And of course the bible is the only source wich gives any proof for the existence of god or jesus. And well all religions claim they are right so wich one is it. The fact that something is written in the bible isn't proof for anything people also could have made it up.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:19 pm; edited 2 times in total | chyron_8472 wrote: |
I don't understand the arguement that people give when they say "There's no scientific proof of the existence of God."
DO you even know what the Scientific Method is?
1.State a Problem
2.Develop a hypothesis
3.Test the hypothesis
4.Analyze the test data
5.Form a conclusion based on the analysis
...This form of proof/disproof doesn't fit nearly all circumstances, therefore you can't use science to prove or disprove everything, and the results from scientific study are not always conclusive.
For example: When I was born, scientific studies suggested that laying an infant baby on it's stomach when they sleep was prefereable so the baby can't choke on itself if it spits up in the night... now, studies suggest that laying a baby on it's back is better so that it doesn't choke and smother itself on it's sheets... Science can't make up it's mind. Just add more data and the results might change again.
Eating raw eggs used to be deemed healthy as a good source of protein, then deemed unheathy because of salmanella, then deemed healthy again because salmanella from eggs is so rare and uncommon. Science can't make up it's mind. Just add more data and the results might change again. |
And that's where science differs from religion. When something is proven wrong, it dares to admit that, and change its theories. That way, when theories aren't proven wrong for a long time, we can safely assume them to be true. Of