Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 136 of 310 (486214)
10-17-2008 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Straggler
10-14-2008 5:46 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
Hi, Straggler.
Straggler writes:
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.
This is a very important topic for me personally. As my training in science progresses, I find fewer and fewer instances in which objective, evidence-based thinking is not needed, and fewer and fewer instances in which my faith-based thinking is helpful at all. I am slowly losing the ability to think like a theist.
I have already lost all the naive Christian-lore thinking of my youth, and am currently wading through a phase of contemplating the overlap between my religion and the knowledge given me by science. Someday, I very well may become an atheist, but I don’t see that happening any time soon, as much for my personal testimony as for my fears about family relationships and the point of my existence.
I call testify from personal experience that critical thinking hurts a theistic mind. I wish I could say it made me humble... but I’m afraid it would take a literal act of a whole doctoral committee of Gods to accomplish that. When you believe there’s a God, you don’t have to worry about your personal worth or about the state of the universe, because it’s all being taken care of by competent hands. But, when you begin to doubt God, you also lose that foundation of surety: maybe everything isn’t being taken care of, after all. With God, there is always somebody who’s going to give me the answers someday; but, without God, there are things that I may never learn.
I go through times when, as every creationist on this website says often, the scientific evidence seems brittle and my adherance to it seems petty, close-minded and ignorant. And, I go through times when I can no longer see a God of any sort. I go through times when it feels like science has illuminated all the frontiers already. And, I go through times when it feels like science doesn’t know anything at all.
I have recently settled more on a deistic view of God. As a father myself, with a one-year-old baby boy, I have been able to witness, firsthand, the wisdom of laissez-faire. I have tried, adamantly, to teach my son a lot of things, but have discovered that he simply won't learn from me: he'll only learn from his own experience. A God who sets Himself up as “father” to billions of people would also be aware of this (I'm confident that it's a fairly persistant trend across humans), not the least because He allegedly created us this way.
To me, a God who punishes wrongdoers as an example for others, or uses wonders and miracles to convince people to follow Him, is an extremely foolish being who only works towards His ends (obedience), and does not concern Himself with any sort of ethics or the needs of His "children." Since I can't accept the existence of such a God (and, if such a God did exist, I would refuse to worship Him and go to Hell for it out of spite, because such a God doesn't deserve to be worshipped), I prefer to hope that there is a God who understands what I have learned from trying to raise my son. So far, God has not attempted to intervene in any noticeable way, and seems content to let me think and do as I see fit, so it seems that my conclusion is correct: God, if there is a God, is also very hands-off, and prefers ethics over ends.
Granted, the available evidence equally supports the complete absence of deity altogether, along with a veritable horde of alternative deities that never appeared in my religious studies.
Where a myriad of unprovable and unevidenced alternatives are available, you really only have two choices: choose one, or don’t choose one.
Not choosing is the rational choice.
But, I still have a lot of things to work through and a lot of confusion to ease before I will be willing to abandon my hard-won feelings and experiences about God.
In leaving God, you stand to lose a whole lot if you’re wrong (Pasqual had something to say about this, I think). But, sometimes, I feel like it might be worth it, just to remove all the pressure of thinking that the Almighty Lord of the universe, who can cause torment beyond my imagining, is watching my every move.
-----
Incidentally, posts like this one make me nervous for weeks: I have no way of knowing whether or when God will decide to zot me into oblivion, and I have been conditioned to believe that doubting is grounds for a good zotting. And, I'm already a nervous wreck with a paper due, a presentation to organize, two discussion sessions to prepare, bills to pay and a baby teething: is it any wonder I'm up in the middle of the night bearing my soul to complete strangers (who, mercifully, at least don't know whether or not "Bluejay" is my real name)?

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

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 147 by onifre, posted 10-17-2008 1:03 PM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 151 by ICANT, posted 10-17-2008 6:12 PM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 169 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2008 8:16 AM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 231 by Stile, posted 10-24-2008 1:20 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 137 of 310 (486218)
10-17-2008 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Parasomnium
10-16-2008 7:26 AM


Re: Put your money where your mouth is
from parasomnium
You said that faith implies the existence of the cause of that faith. You think God is the cause of faith - you never said so, but it was clear from the context that you do. So, in effect you are saying that faith is evidence for God, forgetting that faith can also be induced by madness for instance. So you don't practice what you preach, because you do not show why only God can be the cause of faith.
and this prefectly show how even the best people reach conclusions with out evidence .....
i would like to see how it is clear to you what i am thinking .. please show your working ..
i refer you to my first post where i said i was NOT considering faith in ..anything .. but faith itself ...
i dont think "God" is the cause of faith .. as there is not working defintion of "God" ..
what i was attempting to do is to show HOW faith could be used as evidence .. with out prejudging the issue ...
IF faith can be shown to have a cause ... then , what ever that cause that is found to be, can be evidenced as having some form of exsistance, be it ..maddness , a god(TM) , eating too much chesse , or what ever ..
this is the classic reverse engineering of the cause and effect principle...you notice the effect then hunt down the cause .. a pretty comman scienctific method .
to make the blanket claim that faith can not be used as evidence with out investigating the said faith is unscientific .. as you are making a statement with out evidence ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Parasomnium, posted 10-16-2008 7:26 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-17-2008 7:01 AM ikabod has not replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 138 of 310 (486219)
10-17-2008 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Straggler
10-16-2008 7:36 AM


Re: Science and Atheism
from Straggler
If someone has complete faith and conviction in the notion that God not only exists but also wants him to strap some explosives to himself and blow up a busy airport....
Is that evidence for both the existence of God and the wishes that God has regarding the fate of that individual?
nope it is evidence that the person has faith ...and that is all
to use the existance of that faith as evidence for the existance of god ..you would need to show that ,
1.no other cause could be found for that faith ..
2.that a link between the faith and god can be demonstrated
3.that in that particular case god was the cause of the faith
as to if the person correclty understood gods wishes .. a total no ..
as firstly you would need to accuratly know gods wishes...to compare to the persons actions ..
odd you pick such a violent act ...and not say someone giving away all their wealth and going to live as a hermit .. is that evidence for something ..?
Edited by ikabod, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Straggler, posted 10-16-2008 7:36 AM Straggler has not replied

  
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5311 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 139 of 310 (486224)
10-17-2008 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by New Cat's Eye
10-15-2008 11:13 AM


Re: Science and Atheism
Catholic Scientist writes:
onifre writes:
How do you know it was Jesus though? If I can ask...
I don't, really. I tried to help myself to no avail so I asked Jesus for help and it worked immediately. In the end, I do have to have faith that it was Jesus.
You’re a scientist, so you don’t need me to tell you why such testimony has little validity in terms of being independently verifiable. But that’s not where I want to take this.
The above is typical of a much broader issue. It concerns the extent to which we as humans seem to require much greater burdens of proof from science when it challenges our personal experiences. That is, when science appears to undermine our ability to discern reality. Whether it be Loch Ness Monsters or alien abductions or spiritualism or whatever, anytime science attempts to rationalize these experiences, it tends to alienate the witness who ”knows what they saw with their own eyes’ or ”felt something within that was real’.
So whilst most of us are prepared to accept scientific rationalizations in areas where we are not directly affected, e.g. fairies at the bottom of the garden, we are much less happy to do so where we ourselves have been affected or trust those whose testimony is being questioned. It is a big part of how we see ourselves as humans - as conscious beings who are able to gather information about reality and learn to trust our own interpretations of what we experience. Indeed it could be argued we need to be able to trust our own interpretations to be able to function effectively within that reality.
So when science challenges the way we experience reality, it is effectively challenging the model of reality we have developed, which allows us to be functioning human beings. As such, science may always be limited in its power to persuade ”all of the people, all of the time’.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-15-2008 11:13 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5311 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 140 of 310 (486226)
10-17-2008 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by onifre
10-15-2008 6:27 PM


Re: Answers
onifre writes:
If you are not familiar with the evidence, or have a layman understanding that you feel is good enough to interprete evidence that is far beyond your level of comprehension, then you are not going to agree with certain things, but that does not make those things any less valid to those who do understand it.
This is an interesting point.
As science delves ever deeper into the nature of reality, what it uncovers seems ever more remote from what the average layman has the capacity to understand. As such, the extent to which we, as average laymen, need to trust or place our faith in scientists seems greater than it ever has done, if we are to accept their findings. How can we know whether a prediction made about quantum mechanical interactions in the 8th dimension has been successfully fulfilled? We probably can’t, so we need to put our trust in an ever smaller number of individuals who believe they can.
Does that make them the new gods, in which we either chose to place our faith or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by onifre, posted 10-15-2008 6:27 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Agobot, posted 10-17-2008 7:53 AM dogrelata has replied
 Message 144 by onifre, posted 10-17-2008 12:36 PM dogrelata has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 141 of 310 (486227)
10-17-2008 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by ikabod
10-17-2008 5:35 AM


Writing structure pointers to Ikabod
Looking at the message this is a reply to, and/or other of your messages:
I (and the other admins?) strive to get members to use best as possible writing form in their messages. While there can be situations that preclude such, such as members being very young or speaking/writing English not being their primary language, I suspect such is not the case for you.
For the best presentation of you thoughts, I encourage you to:
1) Start all sentences with upper case (capital) letters, and also start proper names (and "I", I'll etc.) with upper case letters.
2) Strive for better sentence and paragraph structure. End sentences with a ".". Minimize the use of "..." type things. Always have a blank line between paragraphs.
3) Strive to minimize misspellings/typo errors.
PLEASE, NO REPLIES TO THIS MODERATOR MESSAGE. E-mail me if you feel you must reply.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1
Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by ikabod, posted 10-17-2008 5:35 AM ikabod has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 142 of 310 (486229)
10-17-2008 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by dogrelata
10-17-2008 6:51 AM


Re: Answers
dogrelata writes:
As science delves ever deeper into the nature of reality, what it uncovers seems ever more remote from what the average layman has the capacity to understand. As such, the extent to which we, as average laymen, need to trust or place our faith in scientists seems greater than it ever has done, if we are to accept their findings. How can we know whether a prediction made about quantum mechanical interactions in the 8th dimension has been successfully fulfilled? We probably can’t, so we need to put our trust in an ever smaller number of individuals who believe they can.
Does that make them the new gods, in which we either chose to place our faith or not?
Let's first see if reality can be described at all. Let's see a theory of everything and scientists getting out of the mess of the many theories describing only particular fields of reality, then we'll talk about scientists becoming gods. Here is a joke on string theory(there are more jokes on every theoretical model that tries to unite QM and GR):
Now if you are talking about the multitude of proposed hypothetical theories and models describing reality, you are right, you have to take them on faith. If a theory of everything ever comes up, it will be understandable in its basic form and scientists will not be gods. But every theoretical model that there is today, suggests reality is way stranger than anyone can imagine.

"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 140 by dogrelata, posted 10-17-2008 6:51 AM dogrelata has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by dogrelata, posted 10-17-2008 10:26 AM Agobot has not replied

  
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5311 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 143 of 310 (486236)
10-17-2008 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Agobot
10-17-2008 7:53 AM


Re: Answers
Nice joke, although I generally prefer to cut straight to the “I dunno” bit myself - it saves a lot of time and effort.
Agobot writes:
Now if you are talking about the multitude of proposed hypothetical theories and models describing reality, you are right, you have to take them on faith. If a theory of everything ever comes up, it will be understandable in its basic form and scientists will not be gods. But every theoretical model that there is today, suggests reality is way stranger than anyone can imagine.
I think it may have been RAZD, apologies to all concerned if I’m wrong, who said in a thread last year, “It’s the quantum world that is ”normal’, the world of large objects that we inhabit is what’s really weird”, or something to that effect. That really made me think . although I’m not sure it got me anywhere . .
As an aside, I did see something a couple of years ago where a quantum physicist, talking about M theory I think, suggested it may be possible at some point in the future to create a whole new universe in the lab. If that were to ever happen, we would have an entity creating a universe, which is one of the cornerstones of many of the current god hypotheses, so maybe the scientist as god isn’t so far-fetched after all .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Agobot, posted 10-17-2008 7:53 AM Agobot has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 144 of 310 (486240)
10-17-2008 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by dogrelata
10-17-2008 6:51 AM


Re: Answers
dogrelata writes:
As such, the extent to which we, as average laymen, need to trust or place our faith in scientists seems greater than it ever has done, if we are to accept their findings.
Science is a self-correcting institution though. The fact that you can actually win a Noble Prize by disproving your own theory wrong gives me the comfort that if somothing is wrong within any particular theory, there will be thousands of scientist trying to expose it. So I don't think we, the laymen, need to place faith not so much in scientist, but in the scientific method.
Does that make them the new gods, in which we either chose to place our faith or not?
That depends on what we define God to be. If it is the God of Genesis, or Zues, or some other mythological God then I don't see how scientist could ever be thought of as the creators of the universe, but if God is that which explains the universe, then sure, they can be God-like.
You brought up a good point on a previous post, "can a civilization advance enough to give the impression of being gods?".
I would say yes, in fact, and this is obviously a far fetched idea but, say primitive man did see what they thought were gods, they could very well have been travelers from another galaxy so far advanced that primitive men couldn't explain it other than to consider them gods.
Even our current society would seem godly to primitive men. Say we had a Delorean that when you hit 88mph would become a time machine. If we went back in time(100,000years) with iPods, cellphones, digital cameras, and the Delorean it's self, wouldn't they consider us gods?
Edited by onifre, : spelling
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 140 by dogrelata, posted 10-17-2008 6:51 AM dogrelata has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by rueh, posted 10-17-2008 12:48 PM onifre has not replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3661 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 145 of 310 (486241)
10-17-2008 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by onifre
10-17-2008 12:36 PM


Re: Answers
Just a quick side question if I may. Does anyone know if the conquistadors were thought of as gods by the native Americans when they were first encounterd? Or is this just myth and rumor? If true than I think this serves as a perfect example of how technology can impart god like qualities to those who are in truth, merely human.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by onifre, posted 10-17-2008 12:36 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Coyote, posted 10-17-2008 12:53 PM rueh has not replied

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


Message 146 of 310 (486242)
10-17-2008 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by rueh
10-17-2008 12:48 PM


Re: Answers
Just a quick side question if I may. Does anyone know if the conquistadors were thought of as gods by the native Americans when they were first encounterd? Or is this just myth and rumor? If true than I think this serves as a perfect example of how technology can impart god like qualities to those who are in truth, merely human.
Not sure about the conquistadors.
In California the Spanish were initially seen as powerful sorcerers by many the Indian groups. One example: the Spanish were seen to control animals (horses, mules, etc.), something the Indians themselves attempted through rituals.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by rueh, posted 10-17-2008 12:48 PM rueh has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 147 of 310 (486243)
10-17-2008 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Blue Jay
10-17-2008 1:17 AM


Re: Science and Atheism
Hi Bluejay,
Great post.
In leaving God, you stand to lose a whole lot if you’re wrong (Pasqual had something to say about this, I think). But, sometimes, I feel like it might be worth it, just to remove all the pressure of thinking that the Almighty Lord of the universe, who can cause torment beyond my imagining, is watching my every move.
This is one of the very reasons im glad to be an atheist, it removes the burden of always feeling something is looking over your shoulder, judging you, determining the path your life will take. It always seemed like a control method to me, even at an early age. Its almost like placing non-working survalence cameras in work places to give the illusion that someone is monitoring, believe it or not people behave. What better way to control a free thinking species than to tell him/her that everything they do, even if no one is there, is being seen by an invisible God? Believe it or not, people behave.
I believe the people who organized these religions were not stupid or believers themselves. They knew all to well what a society that lacked fear would be like...uncontrolable. They understood quite well the human psyche and knew that if people thought that they would be punished for eternity, then they would follow the rules, even when no one was watching. To steal a line from Dawkins, 'It's the big survalence camera in the sky'. The method works. It works so well that even scientist like yourself, who understand nature, still fear the reprocussions of simply stating your opinion because you've been programmed to fear the 'watchdog in the sky'.
I don't know what the future will hold for religion, and the way people follow it. Hopefully it continues to be less and less dogmatic and literally accepted, and more along the lines of Catholic Sci or yourself.
--Oni

"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 136 by Blue Jay, posted 10-17-2008 1:17 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by bluescat48, posted 10-17-2008 1:41 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 149 by Blue Jay, posted 10-17-2008 3:43 PM onifre has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 148 of 310 (486244)
10-17-2008 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by onifre
10-17-2008 1:03 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
I believe the people who organized these religions were not stupid or believers themselves. They knew all to well what a society that lacked fear would be like...uncontrolable. They understood quite well the human psyche and knew that if people thought that they would be punished for eternity, then they would follow the rules, even when no one was watching. To steal a line from Dawkins, 'It's the big survalence camera in the sky'. The method works. It works so well that even scientist like yourself, who understand nature, still fear the reprocussions of simply stating your opinion because you've been programmed to fear the 'watchdog in the sky'.
Very interesting observation. I totally agree.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by onifre, posted 10-17-2008 1:03 PM onifre has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 149 of 310 (486248)
10-17-2008 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by onifre
10-17-2008 1:03 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
Hi, Onifre.
onifre writes:
This is one of the very reasons im glad to be an atheist, it removes the burden of always feeling something is looking over your shoulder, judging you, determining the path your life will take.
This is one reason why I sometimes wish I was an atheist, too. But, having had my beliefs for so long, and knowing that science isn't infallible and that there are still unanswered questions, I still feel safer hedging my bets and staying where I am.
So, my direct answer to Straggler's OP question is that I am afraid to become an atheist because I am not comfortable with the amount of certainty science offers that there is no God. So, no: science can't (or, at least, hasn't yet) refuted the "god hypothesis." Well, it hasn't refuted all of them yet, anyway.
-----
onifre writes:
The method works. It works so well that even scientist like yourself, who understand nature, still fear the reprocussions of simply stating your opinion because you've been programmed to fear the 'watchdog in the sky'.
It's almost embarrassing, too.
But, it's not so much the fear of being punished by God as it is the fear that I'd be giving up something wonderful: I have it set in my mind that there's a heaven in store for me, where I can live for eternity in complete happiness, together with everyone I love, and gain all kinds of crazy knowledge and power. And, abandoning my religion would also be abandoning that.
What always upsets me the most is that I can't distinguish between the "true" methods that my religion uses and the methods that other people use when they're trying to manipulate people. I can't distinguish between "genuine" feelings allegedly brought by the Holy Ghost, and the obviously "false" feelings that can come from Hallmark tear-jerker movies.
The bottom line is that, if no religion existed, and people were all rational, no one would ever decide that religion needed to be started unless some God actually came and showcased the whole thing for a lot of people.
-----
P.S. What is "onifre" anyway, and how do you pronounce it?

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by onifre, posted 10-17-2008 1:03 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by onifre, posted 10-17-2008 5:08 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 150 of 310 (486250)
10-17-2008 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Blue Jay
10-17-2008 3:43 PM


Re: Science and Atheism
Bluejay writes:
So, my direct answer to Straggler's OP question is that I am afraid to become an atheist because I am not comfortable with the amount of certainty science offers that there is no God.
I agree that science can never remove the possibility of a God-type-energy that put together the fundamental forces of the universe, in fact if that was the definition of God then I would believe that there is a God. I mean, why not? There is no other truth than the fact that existance exists. But, the God I argue against is the one depicted in the scriptures. The one that men claim to have a personal conversation with. The kind of God that answers prayers and takes special interest in the lives of each individual. I believe that type of God has empirical claims attached to it, and those claims can be challenged. In your first post you wrote that you don't believe God intervenes, but you still hold to the ideas of heaven and eternity, seems like a tough paradox to deal with. Especially when the concept of a God that intervenes preceeded eternity and heaven. A type of God that put together the fundamental forces, even I as an athiest, wonder about, eternity and heaven however, seem to be attached to specific religions and there is where I lose faith.
The bottom line is that, if no religion existed, and people were all rational, no one would ever decide that religion needed to be started unless some God actually came and showcased the whole thing for a lot of people.
I agree, and I also see that relgion has helped thousands of people over come major issues in their lives, for this, and this alone, I respect it. But, then again I have a few friends who fell into hard drugs who now get by smoking pot, it's been their religion so to speak. There is alot to be said for the necessary evils that we as humans find as a crutch to get through a complicated existance.
What is "onifre" anyway, and how do you pronounce it?
Lol, that is my name. Oni-fre. I'm a stand-up comic, if you, or anyone else, is on myspace I have videos you can watch. It's rather edgy comedy so if you don't like crude language or topics I don't recommend watching.
myspace/oniperezcomedy.com
Edited by onifre, : spelling

"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 149 by Blue Jay, posted 10-17-2008 3:43 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Blue Jay, posted 10-17-2008 9:34 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 161 by Blue Jay, posted 10-17-2008 9:37 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