@Curtmungus your honor of being more famous than me is quite deserved. I salute you.
Prime Factor
-
- true, true, true, related. We Christians, scientists included (please let’s pretend that this hopelessly romantic prairie boy without the rational that God gave his dog is somewhat of a scientist) have absolutely no tangible proof that God exists etc.
Im not even asking for proof, i just want an argument, without any logical falacy, to just put a personal god in the rank of Theory in the creation of our universe. We can even do that with contradictary theory, so it’s not asking for a proof.
And if i use the creation of the universe; its because the bible and christian believe god is the creator of the universe, and by using the creation of the universe i can bypass useless empiricist argument for Theist & Atheist (miracle & personnal contact for the first one, sociologic & psychological argument for the second).
An exemple between A & T, a is the atheist & T the theist.
T - God must have create the universe because we need a desinger for every design.
A - I can explain the desing of a mountain without using the concept of god.
T - But god create the mountain.That is circular logic, completely invalid, so theres no discussion needed. The only thing you can argue is if the desing of the mountain is or not explained, but if it is not A will speak of even simplest desing totally understood by mankind. While if you are speaking about miracle it would never end because it is subject to interpretation.
T - I have personnal contact with god, you cannot say its not true !
A - Well i can, this is just a psychological reaction to the fear of death
T - no it’s not
A - yes it is
T - no
A - yesAd infinitum… (or maybe Ad nauseam)
We have a historical document that you shoot down as being a fairy tale.
Well… not fairy tale; mythology, but it is close…
The apparent reversal of entropy from the big bang to present, irreducible states of complexity within physiological systems are unexplainable by science, and written off as atheists who refer to the Catholic Churches censure of 15th century scientists.
Still. The theist don’t use the unknow to base coherent theory. They point the finger at it while shouting “it’s god !”. Sure, we don’t know everything… but that’s science, the day we will know everything i wish i’ll be dead (and i will :smile:).
The last thing we need in science is a religion that is trying slow us with conformism. Religion always retreat, just a question of time.
Witnessed miracles since time immemorial, real experiences (in so far that we can claim to have them) with a loving and personal saviour, a personal faith more effective than any other happenstance in a believer’s life (including torture and death) are written off as delusions, psychosis, lies, and irrational beliefs in fairy tales.
Exactly, and you’ll have an hard time using that AS AN ARGUMENT because empiricist is a very hard method of understanding, thing are rarely what they seem.
You have done it FinsterniS. You have asked a question that we can not answer.
Nia nia, i win, you loose, loossssser
No, seriously :smile:
If the concept of god cannot be even usefull.
Then rejecting it is the only logical option.And i am sure you will agree useless concept cannot be integrate in any domain of knowledge.
At the same time, the questions that people of faith ask scientists are answered by the most flacid and tenuous “scientific” arguments with much inferrence, and little basis in fact as well.
In science we often believe we know much more that we really do.
Faith (well, Christianity) needs science: To keep it honest. To provide the physical explanation that underlies the statements in the bible. To help elevate all people in almost every discipline. At the same time, science needs faith (not religion - this is too easily dismissed as a series of superstitious rituals): To keep it honest. To keep people searching out new truths. To provide a balance. To keep us aware that not everything can be mastered and measured.
To keep it honest… and to keep it pollute science with preuso-theory like “creation science”. The very existance of Creationism is fallacious…
About science being honest WITH religion, i really don’t understand. I am doing my job in science, without any Wall. If i discover X, it won’t interfere with Y religious doctrine.
Why am i not honest with Science ?
by the way, glad i’m your favorite foe, you dogmatic church trasher you :smile:
and you dogmatic arch-nemesis of science :smile:
by the way, i did have an interesting experience while overseas, and can see more clearly your anger at religion, your claim that “God” (i’d say more accurately “religion”) is dying, amoung other things, but we can get into this in another series of posts . . . .
That’s in part why i am very proud of being European. Still i am very jalous of the asiatic in their scientic method, they work really more in symbiosis than we, occidental. And they seem to understand more easely all science are not independant but all linked under the same tree of knowledge (not refering to bible).
-
Although Creationism is a hot topic here for the existence of religious thought it is not the only reason. We seem to be swaying that way. People believe in a God for many more reasons outside Creationism. This statement may be assumed by all but I’m pointing it out anyway. Christianity exists on the belief of two rather paranormal events. The birth and life of Jesus and his Resurrection. Prove he never existed or wasn’t resurrected and Christianity will collapse. Of course, you can’t prove or disprove it. This tells us we really don’t die after physical death (a common belief before Jesus but after enhanced). Heaven is potrayed as a painless, peaceful, rest surrounded by your love ones and friends forever. For Monotheism, this fairly positive message in the past and present is easily corrupted. Before the important Separation of Church and State, religious run or sponsored governments had their way screwing the masses over in the name of God with the promise of a good Heaven. Fundamentalists from all 3 faiths take this the step further by finding earthly death desired and killing all in their way of their radical beliefs.
All said and done, God exists to save us from our physical, earthly death. Creationism is a side topic. It’s hard to believe growing up in a “theistic” world that maybe there is no afterlife. The concept is difficult and perhaps frightening to consider. I believe this to be true. This is a dark, possible reality. But, as usual - unprovable…
-
You misunderstand to a degree my analogy. In refering to the color of the sky, I was refering to the answer. I didn’t mean that particular meaning to the number or anything of anything. Simply that the color is the truth, and that we are advancing different colors as to be what we believe is the truth.
And, no there is not more evidence that Bigfoot exists than God. How many miracles have been attributed to Bigfoot? How many people have used logic to prove (or try to prove, depending on your point of view) Bigfoot?
-
And, no there is not more evidence that Bigfoot exists than God. How many miracles have been attributed to Bigfoot? How many people have used logic to prove (or try to prove, depending on your point of view) Bigfoot?
You are very boring with your miracle, only a blind man would think this constitute some sort of argument. In logic we call that “Anecdotal evidence”, it is rarely of any value and often classified as a logical fallacy.
I will just give you an exemple where dogmatic & empiriscist were one; A study proove payer help people to heal faster. So god must exist ! (the inevitable conclusion). But then… a more recent research prove that you can pray NOBODY, GOD, ODIN, SATAN or ZEUS, you will still help the person to heal faster. Why ? We don’t know… certaibly something linked to morphogenetic fields. Still the first theory (god) seem to be, as always, compromised. oh i am sure you will be able to find some way to gently retreat. But the fact is we don’t need god anymore to explain why prayer work.
And like i said, every religion has miracle… so they are all true ? even when they are in complete contradiction ? You have a “poor understanding” (to use your expression) of history if you think only jesus make miracle, and even is miracle are subject to questionning. Some of his miracle are in contraction with roman text of the time.
And for your “logic”, i’m still waiting for logical argument, its not the first time you speak of “logical evidence”, while it seem they are quite rare… You are always using old and invalid theory… Every single logical argument you’ve made were completly fallacious.
“Gott ist Tot”
- Friendrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844-1900)
“Chacun prend les limites de son propre champ de vision pour celle de l’univers”
- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
[ This Message was edited by: FinsterniS on 2002-06-16 15:56 ]
[ This Message was edited by: FinsterniS on 2002-06-16 15:59 ]
-
YB - I’ll agree no miracles are attributed to Bigfoot. Why would there be? As for more evidence, I’ll disagree. Ever since humans have occupied North America, there have been stories and legends (myths) to support this. People ARE seeing something in the woods. People ARE finding unusual footprints in the woods. We don’t have to reach back 2000 years for the last sighting. It’s been happening straight through to now. What miracles are you refering to? The Red Sea crossing? Jesus’ resurrection? Where is God now???
-
Field Marshall - all gold, congrats
FinsterniS - i think you are aware of my arguments by now.
Also just because you call it a myth does not make it so. Furthermore, even if something is a myth does not mean it didn’t happen (or couldn’t possibly have happened). Religions both living and dead have many “myths” that closely parallel stories of the bible. There is much anthropologically and scientifically to support (not prove) intelligent design.quote: If the concept of god cannot be even usefull. Then rejecting it is the only logical option.
And i am sure you will agree useless concept cannot be integrate in any domain of knowledgeFor theists God is above useful. The question for us is not “is God useful to us?” (in explaining the world, say) but rather are we useful to God.
Also, there is more to life and this world than mere utility. I think it may be inappropriate to dismiss a concept (such as God) out of hand due to it’s utility. Also there is much that is of little use that still has a belonging (conceptually) in the realms of knowledge etc.
I think if we limit our imagination to those elements that may be verified by the sense and instruments, then we limit our experiences too. Naturally as a porported anti-scientific empiricist, i can spout this kind of dogma without shame. (would you believe i teach biology and organic chemistry? - my summer job). -
FinsterniS - i think you are aware of my arguments by now.
What argument ?
Also just because you call it a myth does not make it so.
True, and just because you call it reality does not make it so.
Furthermore, even if something is a myth does not mean it didn’t happen (or couldn’t possibly have happened). Religions both living and dead have many “myths” that closely parallel stories of the bible.
For me a myth is a story conceive by human mind to explain things. Sure their is common theme in religion, but when you speak at parralell, you must not forget Christianism was created upon Islamist, who was created upon Egyptian mythology in some part.
The more common theme in religion are justice and post-mortem existance.
There is much anthropologically and scientifically to support (not prove) intelligent design.
I do not agree. The fact is the human race lack so much creative logic… it is very sad. We are intelligent; so universe must be created by an intelligence cause. We have emotions; so the creator must have emotions. We are human; so the creator must look like human. We are (were) a society dominated by male; so god must be male.
THAT is creativity ?
Theres not a sigle domain we have mastered where religion, where the concept of god, is still needed…
The better argument i’ve heard to support god evidence is; god exist because god exist.
For theists God is above useful. The question for us is not “is God useful to us?” (in explaining the world, say) but rather are we useful to God.
You misunderstood, certainly not because of you but because of my poor english. I was refering to logical concept such as Occam’s Razor.
Also, there is more to life and this world than mere utility.
I agree
I think it may be inappropriate to dismiss a concept (such as God) out of hand due to it’s utility.
Well… yes & no.
If A is not useful when we try to explain X, The it would not be logic to integrate A in the understanding of X.
Also there is much that is of little use that still has a belonging (conceptually) in the realms of knowledge etc.
We are certainly not using the same definition of utilit :smile:
I think if we limit our imagination to those elements that may be verified by the sense and instruments, then we limit our experiences too.
Again you seem to limit atheism to empiricism. I personnaly think observation & experiance are not the best way to aquire stable knowledge because of the inhability of induction.
What you just said make a lot of sence to me, and in the world i have very few certitude. I’m a little of a lot of theory, i’m a little rationalist, a little agnostic, a little empiricist it make a agnosto-empiro-rationalist :smile:. But when the discussion is on god; i’m a pure atheist, and i’m becoming more and more anti-religious with time…
Still; what i ask for in the first post was a rational argument, not derive from empiricism.
Naturally as a porported anti-scientific empiricist, i can spout this kind of dogma without shame. (would you believe i teach biology and organic chemistry? - my summer job).
You should be proud, biology is a beautiful science… well… like all science :smile:
-
Religion gives people hope for a better life or the hope of a better afterlife. The first can and does happen and the second, again, unprovable…
-
… still its not a reason to create such pseudo-theory as “Creationionism”. If religion was only a personnal affair i would’nt care, but it is not. It’s “infecting” every science.
-
be careful FinsterniS. Religion is not merely an inner sensation of a god-presence, however it is also a collection of histories, rituals and beliefs passed down via texts etc. Science is no more “infected” with religion then it is by politics (much less, i’d imagine), the biases of scientists seeking their own agenda’s of malice or success, industry, etc. Religion provides a jumping point for science in many respects. It asks why - science replies with how, and both may answer when and where. While it has been repeated that “religious people” have stood in the way of science, there are also many religious people furthering science (myself included). While historically creationists have tried to influence the development of science, they do have some good points (http://www.origins.org/menus/pjohnson.html). Furthermore, creationists are useful in challenging the theory of evolution as being merely a theory, forcing scientitsts to be honest about this point, to find proof for it, and to not declare it the “law of evolution” prematurely.
And really, is “infect” the best adjective you could come up with? Not “permeating” or “lacing”? And every science? And necessarily in a “bad” way? how manichaeistic - Good (science) vs. Evil (religion).
:lol: -
I think we’re all forgetting one of the greatest patrons to modern science and technology – war.
-
The biggest motivator for science is the almighty dollar. Science now is driven by results for profit. As TG Moses VI said, war is a good contributor to science and technology. As Vietnam showed us, big business can keep a war going. I’ll agree politics is a motivator, probably not as much now as in the Cold War. The doesn’t seem much left for religion to affect…
-
Yeah, modern science means absolutely nothing without the almighty dollar. The overhead, logistics, research cost, materials, worker staff all need to be paid for, usually millions of dollars for higher level bio-chemistry. Though private contributions play a large part, the government spends billions of dollars each year on research cost. From World War II came the computer, the drive in Nuclear physics, plastic, synthetic rubber, the radio proximity fuse, rocketry, ect. the list is endless.
-
@cystic:
be careful FinsterniS. Religion is not merely an inner sensation of a god-presence, however it is also a collection of histories, rituals and beliefs passed down via texts etc.
True
Science is no more “infected” with religion then it is by politics (much less, i’d imagine), the biases of scientists seeking their own agenda’s of malice or success, industry, etc. Religion provides a jumping point for science in many respects. It asks why - science replies with how, and both may answer when and where. While it has been repeated that “religious people” have stood in the way of science, there are also many religious people furthering science (myself included).
Sure, science is not pure, but Religion is a counter-force to science that politic & money cannot match, because it does’nt only slow down science, it try to reverse it.
While historically creationists have tried to influence the development of science, they do have some good points (http://www.origins.org/menus/pjohnson.html). Furthermore, creationists are useful in challenging the theory of evolution as being merely a theory, forcing scientitsts to be honest about this point, to find proof for it, and to not declare it the “law of evolution” prematurely.
Creationism influence can be resume to the common people. There’s so many kind of evolutionism that it does’nt require creationism to remind it of it’s fragility. Still, evolution occur, the question is; How ? Creationists are making every move possible to point out problem of the evolutionism but not in a constructive way. There’s something very problematic with Creationism; it’s own method.
Evolutionism =
(Evidence) ==> Theory
(New Evidence) ==> Modification of the theoryIt’s the scientific way. Evolutionism “regenerate” itself with new evidence.
Creationism =
(Religious Belief) ==> TheoryIt’s not scientific. A creationist won’t use evidence of creation but evidence of incoherence in evolutionism. It does’nt regenerate on new evidence… Because these evidence simply does’nt exist. “new earth” creationist just look completly ridiculous, i was really shocked by the importence they seem to have in the US. The major argument religion ALWAYS has used it the argument from ignorance = “We don’t know how X work, then it’s god”
Creationism is just like geocentrism; it’s not in any way valid; it’s just an easy to understand theory, and very good for the oversized ego of the masses. Just look at statistic… the power of Creationism do not lie in his inherent value but in it’s ability to be easily understood by the poppulation.
And really, is “infect” the best adjective you could come up with? Not “permeating” or “lacing”? And every science? And necessarily in a “bad” way? how manichaeistic - Good (science) vs. Evil (religion).
:lol:You know i hate “Good” & “Evil”, black & white term… i’m not qualifying in a general way Religion as being “Evil”, i just say it’s a counter force to Science, and also (i think); evolution himself. The belief in a almighty god is irrational (nobody here seem to be able to say oterwise) and arrogant (human is the center of the “creation”). oh sure i don’t think christian are idiot… well not all. Descarte was a real genius, he make big developpement in science, mathematic, method & logic, still when it come to religion he was completly irrational, every single logical proof he made are not consider as fallacious.
The only argument for religion is faith.
-
Sure, science is not pure, but Religion is a counter-force to science that politic & money cannot match, because it does’nt only slow down science, it try to reverse it.
This is, i believe, a very subjective opinion. Certainly many religious figures (people with religious beliefs) act irrationally, but i’ve seen the same, and worse, from non-religious people as well. Religion and science are outside of each other, and should be (if they do not compliment each other). You are falling into a fallacy of generalizing by assigning all of religion a position of opposing science. Science answers questions about the physical realms, religion about the spiritual ones. They do not have to conflict (unless we humans choose to make it do so).
Creationism influence can be resume to the common people. There’s so many kind of evolutionism that it does’nt require creationism to remind it of it’s fragility. Still, evolution occur, the question is; How ? Creationists are making every move possible to point out problem of the evolutionism but not in a constructive way. There’s something very problematic with Creationism; it’s own method.
I do believe that evolution is occuring, but still not all creationists are out to simply bash the concept. Many of us consider intelligent design to be a wholistic way of tying everything together. Certainly we can not yet PROVE intelligent design, however given our experiences - both inwardly, and our awe at the scope of the creation of the universe - a rational person might understand how one might come by considering intelligent design. But again, if creationists are the only ones telling scientists “wait - you have a theory, not a law, there are alternative explanations” that does not translate into “reversing science” or even being “not constructive”. (dare i consider that it is almost scientific of us to do that?)
It’s not scientific. A creationist won’t use evidence of creation but evidence of incoherence in evolutionism. It does’nt regenerate on new evidence… Because these evidence simply does’nt exist. “new earth” creationist just look completly ridiculous, i was really shocked by the importence they seem to have in the US. The major argument religion ALWAYS has used it the argument from ignorance = “We don’t know how X work, then it’s god”
I do have a problem with new earth creation, although i have heard excellent theories supporting it. Also you might modify your last statement to “We don’t know how X works. We have a relationship with God. It is possible/likely/true that God created the universe”.
Creationism is just like geocentrism; it’s not in any way valid; it’s just an easy to understand theory, and very good for the oversized ego of the masses. Just look at statistic… the power of Creationism do not lie in his inherent value but in it’s ability to be easily understood by the poppulation.
“not in any way valid”? Because God did not leave a literal signiture on the planet that we can identify? This statement again is very subjective.
The only argument for religion is faith.
should it really be any other way? would it make any sense? why would we need both science and religion otherwise? religion is not here to tell us what science can, just as science can never tell us what religion can. dare i consider that it is possible that your viewpoint on the subject is narrower than it might otherwise be - that is, if all you believe in is that what you can see and hear - what would happen if you were born without sight?
-
@Field:
YB - I’ll agree no miracles are attributed to Bigfoot. What miracles are you refering to? The Red Sea crossing? Jesus’ resurrection? Where is God now???
Fatima, Lourdes, Janarius, Guadalupe, Turin, Miraculous Preservation of some Saints’ bodies, for some of the more modern ones. There are so many recorded miracles during the history of the Catholic Church, you have no idea.
Try one I saw myself. I don’t remeber what it is called, but it is this crying statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I saw it myself. The statue was crying. I couldn’tt believe it. I looked for some kind of glands or someting, none. No candles, humidity, anything that could explain it. I saw it at two different places. Crying. A statue.
-
True, and just because you call it reality does not make it so.
You say often Fisternis that just because 85% of the world’s population believes in God does not make it His existence so. However, you are missing the logic that there is enough to support God’s existence to make 85% of the World’s population believe.
The more common theme in religion are justice and post-mortem existance.
No the more common themes are love of God and fellow man
We are human; so the creator must look like human. We are (were) a society dominated by male; so god must be male.
This is straight from you Fisternis, no one here believes this.
The better argument i’ve heard to support god evidence is; god exist because god exist.
You’re pretending there is a circular argument were there is none.
Also, there is more to life and this world than mere utility.
I agree
If God does not exist, what exactly is the point of life? To procreate? To have as much pleasure as possible? To watch TV? What?
If A is not useful when we try to explain X, The it would not be logic to integrate A in the understanding of X.
You are just adding some fancy pants logic to gloss over the real reason you not just disagree with the existence of God, but are vehemently oppossed to the existence of anyone who believes differently.
OIt is because it makes you uncomfortable. Plain and simple.
i’m becoming more and more anti-religious with time…
Again, your hatred of Religion (seperate from your disbelief in God) is a very irrational and emotional aspect, the kind of thing you like to critisiz in other people
You should be proud, biology is a beautiful science… well… like all science
You’re simply trying to replace your natural yearn for God with a new god, science. In april I was working at a camp for sixth graders. Before we ate, we sang a song of thankfulness, it was baisically a protestant grace except “the Lord” was replaced with “the Earth” They had simply moved from worshipping God to nature. When people stop turning to God they make “new gods” to turn to, science, nature, sex, drugs, violence, etc.
-
evolution himself.
Again, you just replacing God with another god, called science. Only science does not offer love, support, or heaven, simply an explanation as to why it rains
-
evolution himself.
Again, you just replacing God with another god, called science. Only science does not offer love, support, or heaven, simply an explanation as to why it rains
I don’t need a heaven.
I don’t need “support” or “love” in the way the church offers.
I believe that science is right. It is a belief, as it starts with some assumptions, that you of course you can deny to believe if you want to and try to find another explanation.But: from that science comes much more respect for living beings, nature (or “creation”), than would come if someone told me to respect it.
I see the beauty and especially the fragility of our ecosystem. And i see how some persons who call themself christian and have sworn on the bible treat our world as if they had a spare one in their shed.I respect Jesus Christ for his philosophy of how we should live with each other.
But, i don’t need someone to tell me what to believe, or what is beneficial or not to myself or to mankind as a whole. I can think for myself.I don’t need a savior, i am responsible for myself and my actions. Whatever “sins” i commit are my actions. If i feel uncomfortable having done some things, then i have to change that i don’t do them again.
Science gave me a certain understanding of how things work in nature. This enables me to a certain degree to foresee the response of nature to the things we do.
Out of pure pessimism i might hope for the existance of an allmighty and caring god, as otherwise we will really face a tough time, unless we change our behavior soon. -
"Soooo… proving god exist is hard. I will just ask that;
i want the rational proof that the concept of god is needed in the explanaition of the creation. "I am agnostic for 3 reasons…
1. Things always happen to spite me…some sort of power is at work.
2. When and what created the universe?
3. It answers all the questions i’m not advanced enuff mentally to answer (i know it enough!)not very good reasons huh? Well if you want people to prove god exists, prove that it doesn’t! You can’t definantly say there is a god or no god, because there is no way we can prove it either away…until we get good enough at physics! meh, i would rather be ignorant!
Suggested Topics
