Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 61 of 310 (486001)
10-14-2008 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by onifre
10-14-2008 1:22 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
onifre writes:
It would still be a natural process, leaving out the enormously complex intelligent diety that would require a bigger explanation that the original question.
Faith in natural process is normal because we know natural processes occur. Faith in a complex intelligent entity lacks any evidence and as such requires a HUGE leap.
OK but without evidence, this alleged "natural process" requires faith. It's true that natural processes occur but for some of them we have no idea why they occur - like life, consciousness, intelligence, emergence of the universe, etc fundamental questions that need to be addressed before I embrace atheism.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by onifre, posted 10-14-2008 1:22 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by onifre, posted 10-14-2008 7:47 PM Agobot has replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 62 of 310 (486003)
10-14-2008 2:31 PM


There is a way to disprove god's hand in the workings of the universe. We'll have to prove that true randomness exists. I see two options for that - we either make an exact copy of our universe outside of it and see if it will go the same way as ours, or more realistically - we take something hard to predict. If we were able to analyse and simulate the exact movement of weather masses(even a relatively small portion of the environment), and then repeat the same exercise with the absolute same weather masses down to the last molecule of oxygen, and the two experiments produce the same result, this would mean true randomness does not exist. High complexity events that are seemingly impossible to predict would produce the same results. This would give us enough evidence to argue that hard determinism is true and that would probably mean there is creator(the whole universe is governed by a law, as opposed to chaos and randomness) and what we perceive as life is nowhere near being life, but a pre- orchestrated play. I believe some day people will be able to carry out such an experiment and that may change the way people think about life.
Straggler, i don't mean to clutter your thread, i am merely suggesting a way to help disprove/prove god(god's hypothesis being the topic of your thread). It's obvious that throwing dice is not true randomness as your hand movement directs the outcomes. I do think such an experiment(with the weather) will remove god from the equation for a lot of us(if it proves randomness exists), but I will not further engage in randomness discussions in your thread to keep it strictly on topic.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"
-Albert Einstein

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 310 (486004)
10-14-2008 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by onifre
10-14-2008 1:18 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
those who have a prior belief in God often cannot believe natural process occur without guildance
I just have a minor quibble with that word often. I think you might be conflating theists and CreationistsTM.
Most theists have no problem with most natural processes occuring without guidance. While some thiests have a problem with a few natural processes occuring without guidance, I wouldn't say that you find them "often".
But whatever, its no big deal.
God however, is not evidence based and requires faith, that is the leap non-theist cannot make without proof for the God in quesition.
And that's a Catch22, because once you have proof for the God in question, you move from faith to knowledge. So really, you guys can't ever have faith.
Science to me just helps my position, but it did not determine my position. I was an atheist at about the age of 10 or 11. At that age all I knew was that dinosaurs lived on this planet long ago and stars were very far away. But, the idea of a God that was omni-present seemed ridiculous to me, without knowing much more from a scientific PoV. So science helps me, but it was not the determining factor.
I was an atheist for a while aroung the time I was in college (after being raised Catholic). It did coincide with my science education, though. My god before that was of the god-of-the-gaps type, and my science education pretty much closed all the gaps. With no room for god, and a kind of apathy to the situation, I just stopped believing.
I had some experiences (that I don't really like, or intend, to get into here) that convinced me that there's more going on here than what science investigates (like a spiritual plane for example). Heh, kinda like Bill Hick's story about eating 5 dried grams of shrooms and laying in a field of green grass going "my god, I love everything.", except I wasn't tripping for all of the times, although I was for some.
I studied various religions for a while, although Christianity always seemed like best one (probably having something to do with being raised that way). Then Jesus saved me. I was totally fucked one day so I fully submitted myself to him (as a last straw) and he came through and un-fucked me. That was quite an experience itself that I just might get into here one day. On top of that, members of my family, who I trust over no other, have confirmed my beliefs with their own.
Religion, and God are far fetched concepts that merit no value for their claims about the natural world.
What do you mean here? Certainly religion has much value for most people? Is the emphasis on their claims about the natural world? Maybe it could be worded better...
I would agree with this, but of course what else is there other than the truth about nature?
Well, there's Animism.... that's atheistic and has other stuff than "the truth about nature".
We are keen to science because science is the truth.
I agree that science is the truth, but I don't think that all truth is covered by science.
Those who are not keen to science are stupid and ignorant, period.
That's mean. What a daft comment! What about people that don't have access to a scientific education but instead became, say, a Buddist Monk. They could have knowledge that you couldn't dream of having (like regulating their internal body temperature and heart rate, etc.). Then who's the ignorant one? Man, that was a really conceited thing to say.
It's like not being keen to math, who would value such a persons opinion if they flat out reject factual evidence? Everyone should be keen to science, theist or atheist alike.
Heh, oh yeah..... context. I see what you're saying but Math is different than science. Science has more subjectivity.
Those who are theistic AND agree with science juggle their common sense with their spiritual beliefs, to me this seems impossible, perhaps those who do this can explain their PoV better for us?
Oh yeah, that's why I replied. Sorry, I've been getting up and doing stuff an then comming back to this.
I'm convinced that the "supernatural" exists because of paranormal activity. Philosophical naturalism is internally consistent, but limits itself, through circular reasoning, in what it can consider and examine.
It turns out that it works though. I mean, here we is conversating over these Internets with 'puters.
The successes of science is what brought me to it (that and I was really good at it in school). But I don't limit myself to the philosophy that it is all there is. And combined with my personal experiences, I have no problem being a thiest while agreeing with science.
I don't know what you mean by "juggling my common sense with my spiritual beliefs".... My spiritual beliefs seem to be common sense.

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"
He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by onifre, posted 10-14-2008 1:18 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by onifre, posted 10-14-2008 5:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 68 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2008 6:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5312 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 64 of 310 (486005)
10-14-2008 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Straggler
10-13-2008 5:41 PM


Re: Potential for role reversal?
Straggler writes:
. idea that a future form of the "god hypothesis" might be more amenable to scientific investigation. Whilst I think the prospect is intriguing it seems unlikely.
I agree, it does seem a little unlikely. Here’s the thing though. We have this theory of evolution. It’s a rather elegant little theory, I believe, and I have no problem accepting it offers a plausible explanation for the bio-diversity we observe all around us. Furthermore, I see it as an ongoing process, which is where things start to get interesting.
In what way will future life forms evolve? The truth is we don’t know, but evolution has produced some pretty complex entities to date. Should this trend continue, can we rule out the possibility that beings will evolve that satisfy many of the criterion that are applied when attempting to define a god?
Maybe the prospect isn’t quite so unlikely after all .
Edited by dogrelata, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Straggler, posted 10-13-2008 5:41 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2008 5:52 PM dogrelata has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 65 of 310 (486006)
10-14-2008 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by onifre
10-14-2008 1:18 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
I can see this supporting your position, but would you still be an atheist if science didn't know as much about nature yet?
Yes I think I would.
As detailed in my last post I don't think atheism is derived from science. Rather I would argue that both are derived from the same advocacy of objective evidence based conclusions. Hence I would argue that they share a 'common ancestor' in many regards (yes this anology is pushing the boundaries of my argument unnecessarily but I think you will get what I mean and I just could not resist the phraseology!!)
We non-theist see no problem with natural explanations, those who have a prior belief in God often cannot believe natural process occur without guildance, both use the same mental tools to access and determine...God however, is not evidence based and requires faith, that is the leap non-theist cannot make without proof for the God in quesition.
Science 'fans' who are also theists seem able to apply objective evidence based thinking to the physical world whilst totally abandoning the same principles in other areas. Areas which mosts atheists would dispute have any validity at all.
Atheists, in my view, are just more consistent. As a result atheists are not faced with the same philosophical problems regarding the ability to differentiate between conclusions that they will and will not accept and the basis upon which such decisions are made.
Like I stated, everyone wants answers. Science satisfies athesits questions.
Yes and no. Everyone does want answers I agree. But one of the key principles of science I would argue is not declaring solid conclusions in the face of inadequate evidence. Preferring an admission of ignorance and need for investigation above an answer for the sake of an answer alone. Theism often seems to me to be as much about a need for answers that do not exist or are as yet unknown as anything else. I think it takes a certain sort individual to forego this need and I would suggest that the this is another link between science and atheism. In the case of both this attitude is derived and necessitated from the evidence based approach upon which each is founded.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by onifre, posted 10-14-2008 1:18 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2008 7:52 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 77 by JungEinstein, posted 10-14-2008 10:45 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 91 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-15-2008 11:32 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 136 by Blue Jay, posted 10-17-2008 1:17 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 66 of 310 (486007)
10-14-2008 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by dogrelata
10-14-2008 4:58 PM


Re: Potential for role reversal?
Maybe the prospect isn’t quite so unlikely after all...
Whether or not we would be able to distinguish between a member of a supremely advanced species and a god is an interesting question.
However I think the one thing that might differentiate such a being is an evolutionary past. Will humans ever accept that which itself has evolved from very simple and humble beginnings as a god to be worshipped no matter how advanced it may eventually be?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by dogrelata, posted 10-14-2008 4:58 PM dogrelata has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by dogrelata, posted 10-15-2008 4:52 PM Straggler has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 67 of 310 (486008)
10-14-2008 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by New Cat's Eye
10-14-2008 3:32 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
CS writes:
And that's a Catch22, because once you have proof for the God in question, you move from faith to knowledge. So really, you guys can't ever have faith.
Probably not. But, I fail to see the reason to believe in something that is a man made concept, especially a man made concept that requires me to put faith in men and their stories, IMO. The idea of God comes from religious texts(for the most part, at least the Abrahamics, and Eastern philosophies), can we agree? Religious texts are written by men. Some where along that line someone forgot to verify if the original premise, "God exists", was valid to begin with, or was it just a conjured up answer to questions about nature?
had some experiences (that I don't really like, or intend, to get into here) that convinced me that there's more going on here than what science investigates (like a spiritual plane for example). Heh, kinda like Bill Hick's story about eating 5 dried grams of shrooms and laying in a field of green grass going "my god, I love everything.", except I wasn't tripping for all of the times, although I was for some.
One of my favorite Hick's bits...that and "Alot of Catholics wear crosses, If Jesus comes back, do you think he's gonna want to see another fucking cross"...
I agree, and do see the need for such spiritual(losely worded), quests, for the human out-of-body experience, DMT is amazing for this. But I don't think these experiences should be confused with what is claimed by the organized religions.
Then Jesus saved me. I was totally fucked one day so I fully submitted myself to him (as a last straw) and he came through and un-fucked me. That was quite an experience itself that I just might get into here one day. On top of that, members of my family, who I trust over no other, have confirmed my beliefs with their own.
How do you know it was Jesus though? If I can ask...
What do you mean here? Certainly religion has much value for most people?
Yes it does and perhaps I worded it wrong. Religion to me is what broguht the God concept to the table. They, religions in their scriptures, claim some very far fetched concepts about the natural world and also requires one to believe, through faith, that the laws of physics a broken from time to time. This I believe is far fetched. Now, that it is of value to people, of course. But, so is Tarot Card readings. People value lots of things that are far fetched.
That's mean. What a daft comment! What about people that don't have access to a scientific education but instead became, say, a Buddist Monk.
My apologies if it came off like that. Shit I love Buddist! I meant those who reject science. I was talking mostly to those here on EvC, since Stragglers OP was directed to them, who reject science for creationist science. No I do not feel that someone who has not been taught science is stupid, I do believe they are uniformed about the world around them but no, not stupid.
Man, that was a really conceited thing to say.
My point was to be taken as a whole. I wrote,
Onifre writes:
Those who are not keen to science are stupid and ignorant, period. It's like not being keen to math, who would value such a persons opinion if they flat out reject factual evidence? Everyone should be keen to science, theist or atheist alike.
I was just refering to those, and again mostly those on this site, who reject factual evidence. The key point was the rejection of factual evidence.
Heh, oh yeah..... context. I see what you're saying but Math is different than science. Science has more subjectivity.
I see that you understood me but, I wanted to rephrase it anyways as to not be taken out of context, I felt I should have worded that statement better as well. I agree that science has more subjectivety, but lets be honest here, those who reject scientific facts seem to do it because of their religious beleifs. And I also agree that the subjective is always easier to accept than the objective, but that should not be the point. Facts are facts. Evolution for example IS fact. Those who reject it, like say AOKid, what would you call them? Ignorant perhaps?
*AOKid, if you're reading this I didn't mean to signal you out, you're just the first name that popped up...maybe cause you're not funny.
I don't know what you mean by "juggling my common sense with my spiritual beliefs".... My spiritual beliefs seem to be common sense.
Let me see if I can put it better for you specifically. You had a spiritual experience, right? And you attribute it to Jesus specifically. Lets say you have this same experience but you are not you, you live in India. Who do you feel you would have attributed that experience to? Common sense, IMO, and on this specific situation would be to say "Ok I had this experience, what the fuck was it?" Not just to attribute it to the God of the land. Not to say that you didn't do this, perhaps you did and were fully confirmed, but I have not seen fit to attribute such things to specific religious idols. Thus my curiousity on how one does that.
Theres no doubt about it. Humans have a very complex neurological system that acts in very unique ways, and interprets experiences in very unique ways also. Common sense to me would be to try and determine the true force, or reason behind the experience, and not just attribute it to the specific God, or religion, or belief that either you were raised around, or is common in your community. Also, if religion is responsible for bringing God to the table,(still debatable of course), then relgions need to be questioned because of their scriptures, and what those scriptures claim about the power of said creator. Some folks, like you I'll assume, do not believe there was a talking snake in Genesis. They're quite ok with just looking past that bit of information, or perhaps they say it's a metaphoric story and should not be taken literally. Ok. I can see that being cool...but you had to juggle there with that story, right? You had to weight the evidnce and YOU had to decide for yourself whats bullshit, and whats not. Thats common sense, right? So why not translate that common sense to other areas of the religion itself, like say to the concept that God actually exists. Because at some point people of faith need to re-write these Biblical texts to start to make sense in light of scientific discoveries. Basically the Old Testament either has to be reject completely, or taken as metaphoric, and the stories about all the wars just to be complete bullshit. I don't know, but there seems to be alot of juggling involved. At that point you'd be left with the New Testament., and the history of the origin of that particular book is very shady. Can you really trust those who put the NT together? I just can't seem to be able to do that. My personal common sense will not allow me.
Edited by onifre, : clarify openning statement

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-14-2008 3:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-15-2008 11:13 AM onifre has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 68 of 310 (486009)
10-14-2008 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by New Cat's Eye
10-14-2008 3:32 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
So really, you guys can't ever have faith.
But seriously why would we want it? And how does one choose exactly what to have faith in?
I don't know what you mean by "juggling my common sense with my spiritual beliefs".... My spiritual beliefs seem to be common sense.
Relying on empirical evidence as the best method of making reliable conclusions most of the time (day to day life, activities as a scientist in particular) whilst simultaneously drawing positive conclusions regarding the existence of things for which there is no empirical reason to even think they might exist........
That I think is what onfire means by "juggling".
My problem with this is that without any reliable method of filtering every subjective delusion or wish fulfilment based conclusion is considered equally as valid as any other. And presumably equally as valid as any empirical conclusion.
There is no method of differentiating between conclusions of the mad, conclusions borne of need and conclusions that are actually true?
If somethimg "feels" right and makes perfect "sense" to me then should I just go with the flow regardless of how absurd my conclusion might be considered by many, or indeed all, and regardless of the lack of any empirical evidence for the conclusion in question?
All sorts of obviously insane, but no doubt believed to be true with absolute conviction by someone out there, examples could be raised at this point........
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-14-2008 3:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Agobot, posted 10-14-2008 6:57 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 90 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-15-2008 11:14 AM Straggler has replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 69 of 310 (486012)
10-14-2008 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Straggler
10-14-2008 6:16 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
Straggler writes:
There is no method of differentiating beteen conclusions of the mad, conclusions borne of need and conclusions that are actually true?
What if we are moving in the wrong direction? Are we all certain that we want to find out the whole truth about life and our existence? What if we don't like it, what if the whole universe is completely deterministic and we don't have free will and we don't control our lives? If the creator came to my door and asked me - "Do you want to know the whole truth about life?", I'd be wavering. Everything about our existence is so unreal, i often have to open the window to have a look outside and see if i am dreaming. When you know more than the average Joe, you start asking more uncomfortable questions. I sometimes think i am going crazy with all this QM stuff, i look at people and then i see them as energy particles packed into atoms, and these energy packets start talking to me. WTF is this? It's very unreal, life is unreal, it's a complete miracle in our everyday lives. An arrangement of energies that forms on its own and talks for 70 years and then dies away. But what the bleep do we know? (just don't go crazy about energy and gravity talking to you next time you converse with someone).
So how come atheists don't believe in miracles, but they believe that objective reality and life exist? How is life not a mind-blowing miracle and would we really want to know the whole truth?
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"
-Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2008 6:16 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2008 7:17 PM Agobot has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 70 of 310 (486013)
10-14-2008 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Agobot
10-14-2008 6:57 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
It's very unreal, life is unreal, it's a complete miracle in our everyday lives. An arrangement of energies that forms on its own and talks for 70 years and then dies away.
Yes. But also a "miracle" that even as an entire species has existed for but a blink of an eye in relation to the age of the small insignificant planet it finds itself upon. Barely an asterisk to indicate an as yet unwritten footnote in terms of the universe as a whole. A badly designed "miracle" that is unable to dwell upon over 66% of the miniscule rock which it inhabits. A "miracle" which would be totally unable to inhabit 99.9999% of the observable universe. A "miracle" which all the evidence suggests very nearly became extinct at some point in the past. A "miracle" that unless it manages to leave the miniscule rock upon which it is currently restricted is doomed to extinction in the future. The real miracle is that we have survived this long in a universe so hostile to our existence.
If this miracle has any long term future it will by by means of science. Not faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Agobot, posted 10-14-2008 6:57 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Agobot, posted 10-14-2008 7:22 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 71 of 310 (486014)
10-14-2008 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Straggler
10-14-2008 7:17 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
Straggler writes:
If this miracle has any long term future it will by by means of science. Not faith.
...or both. Now i am reminded of Einstein, see sig.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"
-Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2008 7:17 PM Straggler has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 72 of 310 (486016)
10-14-2008 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Agobot
10-14-2008 1:27 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
Abogot writes:
OK but without evidence, this alleged "natural process" requires faith. It's true that natural processes occur but for some of them we have no idea why they occur
But this is just a current limitation in our knowledge. Solar eclipses were also unexplainable, and now they are fully understood. Just think about the amount of knowledge that needed to be gained just to figure out what an eclipse was. From early homo-sapiens only, till about 600 years ago(rough estimate), we knew nothing about how or why it occured. Did the answer end up being some Godly purpose, or something quite simple to understand and with NO purpose at all?
QM is freaking you out. Imagine being a primitive homo-sapien witnessing the Sun going through an eclipse! Thats something you can actually witness happening before your eye's. What the fuck would you do? I'd freak out just like you are about QM, but would my freak out by warrented in hindsight? No.
life, consciousness, intelligence, emergence of the universe, etc fundamental questions that need to be addressed before I embrace atheism.
These are just our times solar eclipses.
If you need to figure these out before you become atheist then you won't be atheist anytime soon...these may take a while.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Agobot, posted 10-14-2008 1:27 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Agobot, posted 10-15-2008 3:11 AM onifre has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 73 of 310 (486017)
10-14-2008 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Straggler
10-14-2008 5:46 PM


Re: Answers
Straggler writes:
Yes and no. Everyone does want answers I agree.
The most important questions listed in order of importance to me are:
I will supply the answers my God gives me.
Why do I exist? To seek after and find God and serve Him.
What is the origin of life? God created man in His image He also created all creatures.
When I die then what? The judgment. Then rewards or punishment. My choice.
What is the origin of the universe? God created the heavens and the earth.
The answers science gives me are:
Why do I exist? Because of a process of mutation and natural selection.
What is the origin of life? We don't know, we are working on that one.
When I die then what? Your dead.
What is the origin of the universe? We don't know, we are working on that one.
Straggler writes:
Theism often seems to me to be as much about a need for answers that do not exist or are as yet unknown as anything else.
Unknown to whom?
You don't seem to understand that a theist who believes in God, has been born again washed in the blood of the lamb and sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption does not have any unanswered questions that makes a difference. He/She has also received all the evidence needed to support his/her faith.
Other theist probably need many answers.
On the other hand science comes up short of answering the important questions of life as far as I am concerned.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2008 5:46 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by onifre, posted 10-14-2008 8:22 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 83 by Agobot, posted 10-15-2008 4:38 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 87 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2008 9:37 AM ICANT has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 74 of 310 (486018)
10-14-2008 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by ICANT
10-14-2008 7:52 PM


Re: Answers
ICANT writes:
Why do I exist? To seek after and find God and serve Him.
What is the origin of life? God created man in His image He also created all creatures.
When I die then what? The judgment. Then rewards or punishment. My choice.
What is the origin of the universe? God created the heavens and the earth.
The answers science gives me are:
Why do I exist? Because of a process of mutation and natural selection.
What is the origin of life? We don't know, we are working on that one.
When I die then what? Your dead.
What is the origin of the universe? We don't know, we are working on that one.
Yeah I think we got the premise, but what say you of the lack of evidence to support your ideology? I think thats what the OP wants to find out.
Are you not satified with 'I don't know'? I mean think for a second what science is saying 'I don't know' to. It's not 'where do babies come from?', or 'why do we get diseases', it's saying 'I don't know', to how the universe came to exist! Don't you think that question is a bit complicated as of yet, you know, since we just got to the moon only a few decades ago and all?
Unknown to whom?
Unknown as in factual unknowns, not faith based knowns. Of course we understand that you believe the hype, but if factual evidence is required for the origin of the universe, and a complete mathematical theory is also required, then currently it's an unknown by those standards.
You don't seem to understand that a theist who believes in God, has been born again washed in the blood of the lamb and sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption does not have any unanswered questions that makes a difference. He/She has also received all the evidence needed to support his/her faith.
Again we understand the subjective interpretation placed on scriptures by it's devout followers but, if verifiable evidence and observational models and mathematics are required to understand the nature of the origins of the universe, (and it is require if it's going to befacted based theory), then YOUR subjective interpretation of scriptures does us, the none believers, no good. Yet whether you believe in God or not, you can perfectly understand the current model of the universe using general relativity. All current models agree with the observational evidence, and the mathematics is in agreement also. These are the standards of knowing how it came to be that should be of value to the general public, and not one mans interpretation of scriptures.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2008 7:52 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Coyote, posted 10-14-2008 9:01 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 76 by ICANT, posted 10-14-2008 9:31 PM onifre has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 75 of 310 (486019)
10-14-2008 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by onifre
10-14-2008 8:22 PM


Re: Answers
...and not one mans interpretation of scriptures.
...ay, there's the rub.
If it was just one man's interpretation it wouldn't be a problem. But its millions if not a couple of billion men and their varying interpretations.
Wars have been fought over men's interpretations. The original church has split and split again, till now there are thousands or tens of thousands of different flavors of Christianity.
And how might these differences be reconciled? Why, through further interpretations, of course! Or through revelation (its true, you must trust me!).
Pah! You can have it.
With science we have evidence against which to measure different ideas, and to determine which shall be accepted and which shall be rejected.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by onifre, posted 10-14-2008 8:22 PM onifre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024