Does god exist?

[HoreTore]

To settle this once and for all...

Sigurd and everyone else; Stop stealing threads about trolling with your trolling, and discuss your troll topic here!

So... Is there a God(s)?

Discuss!

[Fragony]

Do I doubt your existance?

[Kralizec]

To settle this once and for all...

well, you're ambitious...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

To settle this once and for all...

If the .ORG can settle that, every single member who posts in this thread should be awarded an honorary degree from Oxford.

In other words, can't be done.

[HoreTore]

If the .ORG can settle that, every single member who posts in this thread should be awarded an honorary degree from Oxford.

Actually, "this" refers to the bickering/trolling of Sigurd and Celtic in the other thread :clown:

[Vladimir]

Now for something not covered (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1887083&postcount=1) before.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Actually, "this" refers to the bickering/trolling of Sigurd and Celtic in the other thread :clown:

Point still stands. :laugh4:

[Ronin]

Does god exist or not is a question that cannot be answered.

Personally I question the validity of the question itself...it only occurs if you are culturally pre-disposed to the notion that there is such an entity...

A more interesting question is....If nobody had ever introduced you to the concept of god to begin with....would you come up with the question 'Is there a god?' yourself?

I myself see no existential need for such a supervisory entity in my life so I would not pose that question myself.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

A more interesting question is....If nobody had ever introduced you to the concept of god to begin with....would you come up with the question 'Is there a god?' yourself?

Probably. I would say it is natural to assume that there is a creator of some kind.

[Craterus]

I agree. It's natural for people to invent their own explanations for things that cannot be rationally explained. At that moment anyway.

[Samurai Waki]

I have to say this... does it matter? If god doesn't exist this doesn't write you off from rule of law, or following any sort of moral honor system. Most Criminals are also religious, and somehow they still manage to upset society. If god exists and you believe (it), then thats fine... good for you, I hope you still are moral and follow rule of law. I just don't want to here it, either for or against, that is my personal struggle, and nobody else's. :stare:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Proving or disproving the existence of some creator object is meaningless. If you could prove that god hated taco bell then you'd have something.

[Papewaio]

The only thing harder then proving a metaphysical being exists using physics is trying to disprove it in the same manner.

[ajaxfetish]

A more interesting question is....If nobody had ever introduced you to the concept of god to begin with....would you come up with the question 'Is there a god?' yourself?

I myself see no existential need for such a supervisory entity in my life so I would not pose that question myself.
On a modern and individual scale your answer could easily be 'no.' On a global and historical scale, the answer seems a definite 'yes,' as innumerable cultures have independently arrived at the idea of deity. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a culture that has not asked itself this question.

The existence of God cannot be proven by human volition (it could be answered in the affirmative if God did exist and personally chose to prove it). The non-existence of God cannot be proven either, as the idea of God makes no specific predictions that can be shown to be false. Specific characterizations of God can be attacked as logically inconsistent (for instance, if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, how can God and evil coexist?) and one might use the issue of weight of evidence combined with Ockham's razor to argue against the existence of God, but actually proving Him not to exist is beyond human power.


If you could prove that god hated taco bell then you'd have something.
Wait, is there any reason to doubt that?

Ajax

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If you could prove that god hated taco bell then you'd have somethingWait, is there any reason to doubt that?

Ajax

No, but until it's proven beyond doubt I could still be arrested for stealing a tank and going on an anti-taco bell rampage of fire and destruction.

[ajaxfetish]

No, but until it's proven beyond doubt I could still be arrested for stealing a tank and going on an anti-taco bell rampage of fire and destruction.
Couldn't you be arrested for, say, stealing a tank and going on an anti-homosexual rampage of fire and destruction? Or an anti-menstruating-women rampage of fire and destruction? Or an anti-anything-else-God-seems-to-hate-based-on-what-the-ancient-Hebrews-wrote-about-Him rampage? I know we're a very Christianized nation here in America, but I didn't think it was legal to steal military technology to destroy the things God 'hates.'

Ajax

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Couldn't you be arrested for, say, stealing a tank and going on an anti-homosexual rampage of fire and destruction? Or an anti-menstruating-women rampage of fire and destruction? Or an anti-anything-else-God-seems-to-hate-based-on-what-the-ancient-Hebrews-wrote-about-Him rampage? I know we're a very Christianized nation here in America, but I didn't think it was legal to steal military technology to destroy the things God 'hates.'

Ajax

It hasn't been proved that god hates those...it's all gossip and hearsay.

[Craterus]

Surely God can't hate any of his creations... :idea:

[Csargo]

How come there are no "Does Satan exist?" threads?

I think we all can agree that it is impossible to definitively prove if there is a God or not.

[Adrian II]

I know we're a very Christianized nation here in America, but I didn't think it was legal to steal military technology to destroy the things God 'hates.'In a nation that is 'one under God' and has a 'faith-based presidency' you are probably safe. Sounds like peanuts compared to my mission to search and destroy Bill Gates. God loves Bill.

I'll probably have to go stealth. https://img255.imageshack.us/img255/2556/ninjafe1.gif (https://imageshack.us)

[Papewaio]

Were a black turtle neck. It has been proven that Bill is blind to the ambitions of those wearing them, and worst case he will give you a couple of million to fund your mission.

[Fisherking]

How do you define God?

If you think god is some guy in a heaven some place then that is out for me. But if you think God is universal conciseness then you might have something. Look at Particle Physics. Observed particles behave differently than those unobserved. What we think and look at has an effect on how things behave. So does that mean that the particles are concise or just that thought can manipulate matter?

Either way it raises some profound questions…So you can have faith or look at scientific data, but still there would seem to be something controlling how things behave….

[Geoffrey S]

Where does when gain the arrogance to decide whether God exists, and if so what His morals are? Anyway, knowing defeats the whole point of belief.

[Andres]

Yes, I exist.

[Sigurd]

Nice to see a thread dedicated to my trolling in the “trolling thread”.

The question of whether there exists a God or not, can possibly not be answered by science as science pertains to that which is physical and measurable.
Since the dawn of philosophy, great thinkers have toyed with the idea that God is beyond that which is physical.
I believe it was Aristotle that put it into writing and it was latter scholars that coined the term metaphysics from the way the books were placed (after the book on physics).
One of the books deals with the absurd idea of infinite casual causes and postulates the idea of a first cause or the unmoved mover which is described in a separate book.
This moves the ability to prove Gods existence from science to philosophy and the tools of philosophy.

I believe that in a debate using the tools of philosophy, the theist position is the easiest to defend. How can anyone state an affirmative on the atheist position? I think I would have had a hard time coming up with one. So long as the debater keeps to the realm of philosophy and the use of its tool: logic, it would be a win for the theist position.
The theists have created this position by putting God beyond the physical realm.

Now the God I am talking about is far from the God of Christianity or any of the other religions. As long as the question is only: Does God exist, the scope of the discussion is quite narrow. All you have to do is to argue a first cause, and that this first cause is God.

There is another completely different theist proposition on the existence of God that will successfully win a debate. I will keep it a secret for now, unless a worthy opponent should challenge me to a debate on this subject.

[HoreTore]

The gauntlet is thrown!

Unleash the trolls and spammers!

[Andres]

How can anyone state an affirmative on the atheist position?

Why would the atheist have to state an affirmative? He doesn't claim that "God" exists, the theist does.

And the atheist doesn't ask for a philosphical prove, based on logic, he asks for a scientific prove, facts :shrug:

By demanding an affirmative position based on logic/philosophy you maneuver the atheist into a position he has never taken.

[Big_John]

The question of whether there exists a God or not, can possibly not be answered by science as science pertains to that which is physical and measurable.
Since the dawn of philosophy, great thinkers have toyed with the idea that God is beyond that which is physical.
I believe it was Aristotle that put it into writing and it was latter scholars that coined the term metaphysics from the way the books were placed (after the book on physics).but is there connection between the physical and metaphysical? if so, mustn't there be an effect in the physical world coming from metaphysical cause? if so, we should be able to measure that effect with "science".

if not, then what is the point of belief in something entirely and forever remote? how could any information about the metaphysical exist in the physical world?

One of the books deals with the absurd idea of infinite casual causes and postulates the idea of a first cause or the unmoved mover which is described in a separate book.
This moves the ability to prove Gods existence from science to philosophy and the tools of philosophy.

I believe that in a debate using the tools of philosophy, the theist position is the easiest to defend. How can anyone state an affirmative on the atheist position? I think I would have had a hard time coming up with one.logical impossibilities could certainly be used. but the more important point is that the atheist position needn't seek an affirmative. the theist is the one making an assertion. the atheist only assumes natural ignorance. now you can complain that strong atheists posit a non-existence, but is that really true? given that negatives (besides logical impossibilities) can't be proven, can one ever make a negative claim? is god in this case on the level of goblins and faeries, which are similarly non-disprovable?

but let's assume that the strong atheist is making an assertion of non-existence. in that case we still have two sides making assertions: one side claims that something outside of consensual experience/demonstration exists, the other asserting that this thing does not exist. assuming all else is equal, you couldn't argue that the burden of proof is any heavier on the strong atheist here. it is even, at best.

So long as the debater keeps to the realm of philosophy and the use of its tool: logic, it would be a win for the theist position.
The theists have created this position by putting God beyond the physical realm.??

if anything, it would be a draw by default.

Now the God I am talking about is far from the God of Christianity or any of the other religions. As long as the question is only: Does God exist, the scope of the discussion is quite narrow. All you have to do is to argue a first cause, and that this first cause is God.but no theist truly believes that this is all that is necessary of their god; that it is simply the 'first cause', entirely unknowable beyond that. this is making no statement of deity. capital G "God" is never just a 'first cause'. it's usually a "he" and he has a "personality", etc. even deists would probably try to attach an identity of some sort to this 'first cause'.

but beyond that, the cosmological argument is potentially fundamentally flawed in application to the known universe, since it relies on cause for an event that is outside of time (the beginning of the universe). in other words, it is not impossible that the universe is uncaused.

There is another completely different theist proposition on the existence of God that will successfully win a debate. I will keep it a secret for now, unless a worthy opponent should challenge me to a debate on this subject.do share.

[CountArach]

@ Sigurd - How do you explain Atheist philosphers?

[Abokasee]

heres what I think


Live a worth while life, try to stay out of trouble, things will probably pan out fine

Its important know that god will/might exsist for if you believe in him but even then s/he/it might not show him self all the the time, if you get good fortune, it could very well be gods help, if you don't believe in god/s/supreme being then its simply called: Luck

(Dam wording this things is pain in the donkeys rectum)

[Banquo's Ghost]

but let's assume that the strong atheist is making an assertion of non-existence.

I think we would all benefit by agreeing terms of reference.

Atheism, by definition, is the theory or belief that God does not exist. No strong or weak flavour pertains to the position.

Agnosticism is the contention that nothing is known or can be known about the nature of God or of anything beyond the realms of material phenomena. Invariably, neither faith nor disbelief in God is claimed. Supernatural relevance can range from none to profound, as a philosophical conundrum.

Theism is the belief in God or gods that intervene in their creation and maintain a personal relationship to the creatures therein. A variant of this is Deism, which argues for a creator being that does not so interfere.

In other words, atheists take as strong a position as theists, and therefore stand questioning on their evidence to the same degree.

[macsen rufus]

Observed particles behave differently than those unobserved.

Oh god, not that one! It's not consciousness, it is simply that in order to "observe" something at quantum scale you need to interact with it. Collapsing a wave function is how an observation is made, it doesn't go "oo err someone's looking at me, I'd better collapse"....


( :oops: Sorry, yes, I did get out the wrong side of the bed today... but even so that effect is down to Heisenberg, not God :bow: )

note to my inner troll: "get back under that bridge ... NOW!"

[Viking]

Nice to see a thread dedicated to my trolling in the “trolling thread”.

The question of whether there exists a God or not, can possibly not be answered by science as science pertains to that which is physical and measurable.
Since the dawn of philosophy, great thinkers have toyed with the idea that God is beyond that which is physical.
I believe it was Aristotle that put it into writing and it was latter scholars that coined the term metaphysics from the way the books were placed (after the book on physics).
One of the books deals with the absurd idea of infinite casual causes and postulates the idea of a first cause or the unmoved mover which is described in a separate book.
This moves the ability to prove Gods existence from science to philosophy and the tools of philosophy.

I believe that in a debate using the tools of philosophy, the theist position is the easiest to defend. How can anyone state an affirmative on the atheist position? I think I would have had a hard time coming up with one. So long as the debater keeps to the realm of philosophy and the use of its tool: logic, it would be a win for the theist position.
The theists have created this position by putting God beyond the physical realm.

Now the God I am talking about is far from the God of Christianity or any of the other religions. As long as the question is only: Does God exist, the scope of the discussion is quite narrow. All you have to do is to argue a first cause, and that this first cause is God.

There is another completely different theist proposition on the existence of God that will successfully win a debate. I will keep it a secret for now, unless a worthy opponent should challenge me to a debate on this subject.


Methinks the most important aspect is that of consciousness. If the God is not physical, then from where does his consciousness stem? If humans have a spirit, a soul; something that is beyond the physical realm....then how can you explain the fact that humans become not only physically, but also psychically tired?

If your brain does not get as much sleep as it desires, your logic will not be as good as it could be. If someone approaches you from behind and bang your head, you'll loose your consciousness. If you underwent a brainsurgery and something went wrong, you might experience a personality change. How is this possible if the I is a soul?

Instead, it seems most correct to conclude that our consciousness stems from our physical brain entirely, and that if it is damaged, our consciousness, the I, is also damaged.

Therefore, I claim that, believing in a God, a creator, is irrational because it does fit our observations; that consciousness requires a brain, and that if a God has a brain, then he cannot be put outside our universe, outside the laws of nature.

[Drisos]

Atheism, by definition, is the theory or belief that God does not exist.

Hmmm. I don't see my opnion as a theory or belief. I've seen/heard/felt/read anything that made me think god exists, so I don't think he does.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I've seen/heard/felt/read anything that made me think god exists, so I don't think he does.

Well, that's a theory then, isn't it? Based on the "evidence" that you have "collected", you believe that God doesn't exist.

[Ronin]

Atheism, by definition, is the theory or belief that God does not exist. No strong or weak flavour pertains to the position.



ohh but it does....

a Strong atheist makes the claim that God does not exist

a weak atheist (sometimes also called an Apatheist) is uninterested in the 'God' proposition.

[Andres]

I really don't get it. Why should the atheist have to prove that there is no God ?

He's not the one who claims the existence of such a being. The believer claims the existence of a God.

Actor incumbit probatio.

[Drisos]

Well, that's a theory then, isn't it? Based on the "evidence" that you have "collected", you believe that God doesn't exist.

No.
It's not like I believe that god doesn't exist, but I don't believe that he does exist. That's different. I have no single reason to believe in whatever god(s) other people believe in.

And I wouldn't call it 'collecting evidence against'. It's just like with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You have no single reason to believe in something that ridiculous. Same with god. No single reason to believe he exists. That's not really evidence, but more the absence of evidence/clues for the other side of the story.

[Sigurd]

[…] but the more important point is that the atheist position needn't seek an affirmative. The theist is the one making an assertion. The atheist only assumes natural ignorance. Now you can complain that a strong atheist posit a non-existence, but is that really true? Given that negatives (besides logical impossibilities) can't be proven; can one ever make a negative claim? Is god in this case on the level of goblins and faeries, which are similarly non-disprovable? I know I skipped some of your arguments pertaining to the metaphysical, but in order for opposing sides to have a debate [formal as such] both sides need to put forth an affirmative proposition which defend their position. Otherwise there can be no debate. I would certainly not enter into a debate where I was the only one defending a position.
[I guess this an answer to Andres' questions as well]


[...] but let's assume that the strong atheist is making an assertion of non-existence. In that case we still have two sides making assertions: one side claims that something outside of consensual experience/demonstration exists, the other asserting that this thing does not exist. Assuming all else is equal; you couldn't argue that the burden of proof is any heavier on the strong atheist here. It is even, at best.

At best, yes.
I have as previously stated not seen a good affirmative position on atheism.
Most debates where this subject is argued, the atheist makes blanket statements on what the theists supposedly believes and why they are wrong usually referring to either Santa Claus or the Tooth fairy without stating why they think atheims is the right position.

This is easily shot down by the theist as straw men and points to the fact that no affirmative position have been forwarded. A debate judge will award points to the theist and none for the atheist.


But no true theist believes that this is all that is necessary of their god; that it is simply the 'first cause', entirely unknowable beyond that. This is making no statement of deity. Capital G "God" is never just a 'first cause'. It’s usually a "he" and he has a "personality", etc. even deists would probably try to attach an identity of some sort to this 'first cause'.
This is true. But I am not a true theist.
I am an agnostic but like to jump off the fence now and then. On the Theist side off course, mind you. :beam:


but beyond that, the cosmological argument is potentially fundamentally flawed in application to the known universe, since it relies on cause for an event that is outside of time (the beginning of the universe). In other words, it is not impossible that the universe is uncaused. Even science agrees that the universe began to be at a certain point in time. This means the universe is a temporal event. It has a finite time. The problem with this theory is that if the cause of the big bang [small letters on purpose] is mechanical, then the universe can not have a finite age. The conditions for the creation of the universe would be as eternal as its existence and hence it was never created… it just is.
This is scientifically and logically absurd and therefore someone [a personal agent] must have chosen to cause the universe. This cause must be outside time and the physical realm as none existed prior to the universe. In other words the cause must be eternal and immaterial.
Of course this leads to other logical difficulties, but you can clearly see where the philosophy of the Greeks seeped into Christianity. You see, the early Christians never believed in an immaterial God. To them God was as physical as any man.

[Andres]

I know I skipped some of your arguments pertaining to the metaphysical, but in order for opposing sides to have a debate [formal as such] both sides need to put forth an affirmative proposition which defend their position. Otherwise there can be no debate. I would certainly not enter into a debate where I was the only one defending a position.


So, you deliberately ignore the atheist who does not believe in God simply because he hasn't seen/read/heard anything that convinces him to believe otherwise?

By definition the a-theist's position is determined by a negative statement. Imho, the atheist cannot make an affirmative statement about the non existence of a God.

Asking the atheist to prove that there is NO God is as unfair as me asking you to prove to me that you DO NOT owe me 5.000.000 € and expecting that you have to pay me said 5.000.000 € if you cannot prove to me that you do not owe me said amount.

[Sigurd]

So, you deliberately ignore the atheist who does not believe in God simply because he hasn't seen/read/heard anything that convinces him to believe otherwise?
My dear Andres...
Why do not the atheist only state what you just wrote as the basis of his/her position?
e.g. :

I don't believe God exists because I have not seen/read or heard anything that convinces me to believe otherwise.
But NO... they have to throw in words like irrational or tooth fairy or look at the suffering children in Africa or all theists are idiots etc, etc... to prove that there is no God.

Well... :smash:

[Andres]

My dear Andres...
Why do not the atheist only state what you just wrote as the basis of his/her position?

I don't know.

But by forcing the atheist to start the debate with an affirmative position, the debate becomes unfair imo.

If you disagree on that, then I suggest we'll have a chat about how you are going to pay me that
5.000.000 € ~;p

[LittleGrizzly]

The reason i am an atheist is there are no proofs of god and any such proofs attempted are built similarly to conspiracy theorys, they are built on holes in our knowledge.

[Sigurd]

If you disagree on that, then I suggest we'll have a chat about how you are going to pay me that
5.000.000 € ~;p
I don't believe I owe you €5 000 000 because I have not seen/received or heard about any invoice from you. Neither have you delivered the oil rig that I ordered.
If you do not provide the oil rig within 24h, I will drag your *** to court for breaching the contract that explicitly states the deliviery to be january last year. Oh and BTW you owe me €20 000 000 in day fines. Please just deduct the invoice from the €20 mill. and send the rest with the rig.

[Viking]

Even science agrees that the universe began to be at a certain point in time. This means the universe is a temporal event. It has a finite time. The problem with this theory is that if the cause of the big bang [small letters on purpose] is mechanical, then the universe can not have a finite age. The conditions for the creation of the universe would be as eternal as its existence and hence it was never created… it just is.
This is scientifically and logically absurd and therefore someone [a personal agent] must have chosen to cause the universe. This cause must be outside time and the physical realm as none existed prior to the universe. In other words the cause must be eternal and immaterial.
Of course this leads to other logical difficulties, but you can clearly see where the philosophy of the Greeks seeped into Christianity. You see, the early Christians never believed in an immaterial God. To them God was as physical as any man.


That is a neat parallel to beliefs in supernatural powers in the ancient times when one could not explain what thunder, what illness, what the Moon, the stars, the shooting stars, et cetera, were. Since humans could not understand, illnesses were considered as the wrath of the gods unleashed. Today, we know that illnesses are caused by bacterias, viruses and other substances; not supernatural powers pulling the strings.

In the same fashion, we do know little about the origin of the universe, how it is going to end and just how it works in general; what is gravity?

So, assigning the observational result of plain natural processes to a supernatural power is nothing new, and you are doing it again here. The universe originated by the means of the same laws that makes the universe to what it is today.

[Sigurd]

That is a neat parallel to beliefs in supernatural powers in the ancient times when one could not explain what thunder, what illness, what the Moon, the stars, the shooting stars, et cetera, were. Since humans could not understand, illnesses were considered as the wrath of the gods unleashed. Today, we know that illnesses are caused by bacterias, viruses and other substances; not supernatural powers pulling the strings. Straw man or is it a Red herring?


In the same fashion, we do know little about the origin of the universe, how it is going to end and just how it works in general; what is gravity?
So, assigning the observational result of plain natural processes to a supernatural power is nothing new, and you are doing it again here.
A plain natural proccess ? ... references please.
And this is not science [observational], it is an exercise in philosophy and logic.


The universe originated by the means of the same laws that makes the universe to what it is today. Circulus in demonstrando

[Adrian II]

Even science agrees that the universe began to be at a certain point in time. This means the universe is a temporal event. It has a finite time. The problem with this theory is that if the cause of the big bang [small letters on purpose] is mechanical, then the universe can not have a finite age.Your musings may well be valid, but they are not true. Those are two diferent things.

The scientific position is that the beginning of the universe was also the beginning of time. That is why when we look into the universe, we also look back in time. Clickety click (http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html).


https://img413.imageshack.us/img413/9396/a2sgifjb2.gif (https://imageshack.us)

[Rhyfelwyr]

Methinks the most important aspect is that of consciousness. If the God is not physical, then from where does his consciousness stem? If humans have a spirit, a soul; something that is beyond the physical realm....then how can you explain the fact that humans become not only physically, but also psychically tired?

If your brain does not get as much sleep as it desires, your logic will not be as good as it could be. If someone approaches you from behind and bang your head, you'll loose your consciousness. If you underwent a brainsurgery and something went wrong, you might experience a personality change. How is this possible if the I is a soul?

Instead, it seems most correct to conclude that our consciousness stems from our physical brain entirely, and that if it is damaged, our consciousness, the I, is also damaged.

Therefore, I claim that, believing in a God, a creator, is irrational because it does fit our observations; that consciousness requires a brain, and that if a God has a brain, then he cannot be put outside our universe, outside the laws of nature.

I suppose the argument to that is that our brains and bodies are just the physical things that allow us all to interact and get on with things in the physical dimension. Being whacked on the head wouldn't damage your soul as such, but you would be unable to send signals with your brain to get your body to react.

I just can never understand why there is anything at all. To the theists, I'd say where does God come from. To the Big Bang crew, I don't understand how an explosion can cause itself from nothing. Of course my line of thought (or lack of it maybe) is obviosuly wrong since there is stuff going on and there is not just nothingness. So as far as I'm concerned anythings possible.

Half of my family are very logical, they laugh at you if you believe in god. The other half say he exists, they say they can tell whenever they look at a flower or something like that. I'm not really in either camp, though I admit I have to laugh at the above argument.

[Viking]

Straw man or is it a Red herring?

~:confused:




A plain natural proccess ? ... references please.

How can things that happens be anything but a natural process? Are you going to claim that the laws of aero dynamics also are the result of divine intervention?


And this is not science [observational], it is an exercise in philosophy and logic.

You could use philosophy in an attempt to understand the world around you, how it works, et cetera; but actually getting to the truth without testing your hypothesis is impossible. If you were born a thousand years ago and tried through philosophy to deduct what lightning were, you'd never succeed.
In the same way, using logic to figure out the origin of the universe is futile; the universe is not logic. By human logic (human logic is relative, don't forget. Isn't it logic that a vehicle can move forward without horses pulling it?), the universe should have an end and a beginning; but does it? You can say what you want about big bang and science, but our knowledge regarding cosmology is weak.

[Viking]

I suppose the argument to that is that our brains and bodies are just the physical things that allow us all to interact and get on with things in the physical dimension. Being whacked on the head wouldn't damage your soul as such, but you would be unable to send signals with your brain to get your body to react.

When you are two years old, your logic is not anywhere near what it is at later stages. It does indeed not seem like a communication problem between the soul and the body that functions as a host. Again, if a brain surgery goes wrong (strictly speaking, it could go perfectly well and still lead to changes), the I [could go through] changes, the way you conceive things could change dramatically, and if you, the I, is not the soul, then what is?

[Rhyfelwyr]

It's not like I really believe in the soul thing, but as for the logic with children I suppose that would just develop as you get older, I'm not sure if the soul has to be set and unchangeable. Maybe your soul and logic are seperate, or the soul is the foundations for logical decisions. We only use 10% of our brains after all IIRC, though I'm not sure of the science behind that. I suppose the soul would'nt count as a physical thing anway...

[Sigurd]

~:confused:

You are introducing irrelevant facts and put forward ideas that I have never introduced.

We are talking about the origin of everything that is [universe]... nothing else.
Science believes the universe began at one point because they can observe an expansion of the universe. By rewinding this expansion everything regress to a singularity (an absurdity in itself).
This means that at this point no laws or natural process existed. Science can't go beyond this point. There is nothing to measure. In fact nothing existed. What then created this supposed singularity?

Since we were talking about the first cause and the creation of the universe wouldn't this infinite singularity that held all there is, be infinite dense and heavy? (you mentioned gravity) What could possibly made this explode and create the universe when the known laws state that immense heavy and dense objects create black holes which traps even light?

This is all beside the point.
You should by now grasp that we are beyond the point where science can measure anything, we have entered the immaterial realm where only exercises in logic can venture further.

[macsen rufus]

Before we can seriously discuss the question of "Is there a God?", we need to first answer "What do we mean by 'God'?" And probably we need to go even further back to the original question that 'God' was proposed as an answer to.

To me, the null assumption about life, the universe and everything is that it "just is". God is a proposal*, and the onus of proof is on the proposer :bow:

Edit: * and so is the big bang model I guess....

Some of these exchanges here can be paraphrased as "The God you believe in is not the God I don't believe in", and are doomed to futility.

So if I could inject a whiff of Voltaire, please define your terms :2thumbsup:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

We are talking about the origin of everything that is [universe]... nothing else.

What for?

[Louis VI the Fat]

The question of whether there exists a God or not, can possibly not be answered by science as science pertains to that which is physical and measurable.

One of the books deals with the absurd idea of infinite casual causes and postulates the idea of a first cause or the unmoved mover which is described in a separate book.

This moves the ability to prove Gods existence from science to philosophy and the tools of philosophy.

I believe that in a debate using the tools of philosophy, the theist position is the easiest to defend. How can anyone state an affirmative on the atheist position? I think I would have had a hard time coming up with one. So long as the debater keeps to the realm of philosophy and the use of its tool: logic, it would be a win for the theist position.
The theists have created this position by putting God beyond the physical realm.

Now the God I am talking about is far from the God of Christianity or any of the other religions. As long as the question is only: Does God exist, the scope of the discussion is quite narrow. All you have to do is to argue a first cause, and that this first cause is God.

There is another completely different theist proposition on the existence of God that will successfully win a debate. I will keep it a secret for now, unless a worthy opponent should challenge me to a debate on this subject.I'm sorry, but this all will at best only yield a tautological proof of the first proposition: that there was necessarily a first mover. It is akin to proposing a debate by saying that 'let's agree that x comes before y. Now, accepting these terms, would anybody like to challenge me that x does not come before y'?

I shall make a bold counterclaim: there isn't any theist proposition that will successfully win any debate. Atheists are right by the standards of science, logic and philosophy. But for the sole exception that perhaps we can't be sure about anything whatsover. However, once debaters agree that they exist and are actually enganging in a debate, and 'debate' implies that they do, this exception is forfeited by mutual agreement.

Theism belongs to the spheres of faith and absurdology. (note: this is not the same as saying that belief in God is absurd). Theism is as grounded in, and as useful to, science or logic or philosophy as the belief that Napoleon was a mutant Corsican rabbit is to history.

[ajaxfetish]

If your brain does not get as much sleep as it desires, your logic will not be as good as it could be. If someone approaches you from behind and bang your head, you'll loose your consciousness. If you underwent a brainsurgery and something went wrong, you might experience a personality change. How is this possible if the I is a soul?

Instead, it seems most correct to conclude that our consciousness stems from our physical brain entirely, and that if it is damaged, our consciousness, the I, is also damaged.

You're operating here on the assumption that consciousness must be one or the other, material or immaterial. I would agree with you entirely that the brain is a physical organ, ruled by the laws of the physical universe and subject to fatigue, damage, etc. But I would not claim that the brain and the soul are one and the same. In my worldview a person has both physical and metaphysical components. Naturally, if the physical side is compromised the person will lose consciousness.

Ajax

[Big_John]

I think we would all benefit by agreeing terms of reference.

Atheism, by definition, is the theory or belief that God does not exist. No strong or weak flavour pertains to the position.

Agnosticism is the contention that nothing is known or can be known about the nature of God or of anything beyond the realms of material phenomena.well, then call it naturalism or apatheism or skepticism if you want. there are two distinct forms of atheism, beyond agnosticism: the one who asserts that the non-existence of god is true and knowable, and the one who asserts nothing, but instead assumes natural empiricism, and fails to believe in realities that cannot be demonstrated.


Even science agrees that the universe began to be at a certain point in time. This means the universe is a temporal event. It has a finite time. The problem with this theory is that if the cause of the big bang [small letters on purpose] is mechanical, then the universe can not have a finite age. The conditions for the creation of the universe would be as eternal as its existence and hence it was never created… it just is.no. time, along with the other dimensions of the universe came into existence at the big bang. that is the generally accepted 'scientific' view. this means that causality is not necessarily applicable to the origin of big bang singularity. the cosmological argument relies on a temporal cause.

This is scientifically and logically absurd and therefore someone [a personal agent] must have chosen to cause the universe. This cause must be outside time and the physical realm as none existed prior to the universe. In other words the cause must be eternal and immaterial.making way too many assumptions. what "existed" "prior" to the universe is unknowable, at best. moreover, to talk about existence prior to the universe is absurd because it imposes the physical laws of our universe on something outside.
Of course this leads to other logical difficulties, but you can clearly see where the philosophy of the Greeks seeped into Christianity. You see, the early Christians never believed in an immaterial God. To them God was as physical as any man.and this would be one of the easily measurable and therefor provable conceptions of god that has had to retreat before rationality and 'science'.


To the Big Bang crew, I don't understand how an explosion can cause itself from nothing.understand that "cause" implies time (and space, actually). time and space as we understand them came into existence at the big bang. so it is not necessary that the big bang had a cause. it may even be absurd to posit that it should.


We are talking about the origin of everything that is [universe]... nothing else.
Science believes the universe began at one point because they can observe an expansion of the universe.scientists may have beliefs, but "science" has none.
By rewinding this expansion everything regress to a singularity (an absurdity in itself).[quote]how is a singularity an absurdity?
[quote]This means that at this point no laws or natural process existed. Science can't go beyond this point. There is nothing to measure. In fact nothing existed. What then created this supposed singularity?why need it be "created"?

Since we were talking about the first cause and the creation of the universe wouldn't this infinite singularity that held all there is, be infinite dense and heavy? (you mentioned gravity) What could possibly made this explode and create the universe when the known laws state that immense heavy and dense objects create black holes which traps even light?you just said "This means that at this point no laws or natural process existed", and now you want to rationalize gravity with the big bang expansion? in big bang theory, gravity would have not existed as a separate force at the beginning. your comparison is illogical.

[ajaxfetish]

scientists may have beliefs, but "science" has none.
I disagree with this statement. The practice of science is founded upon several beliefs, including the existence of causality, the potential for objective analysis, and the constancy of laws across time and space.

Ajax

[Big_John]

I disagree with this statement. The practice of science is founded upon several beliefs, including the existence of causality, the potential for objective analysis, and the constancy of laws across time and space.

Ajaxthese are axiomatic assumpitons upon which the method is based, they are not conclusions. beliefs are opinons come to by way of consideration and conclusion.

edit: but more importantly, "belief" implies a capacity beyond science (the ability to believe). science is just a collection of hypotheses, measures and theories.

[ajaxfetish]

I fail to see any functional difference between such an 'axiomatic assumption' and a belief. Neither is proven, neither can be proven, in both cases it must be assumed and accepted before further progress can be made.

Ajax

[Big_John]

I fail to see any functional difference between such an 'axiomatic assumption' and a belief. Neither is proven, neither can be proven, in both cases it must be assumed and accepted before further progress can be made.

Ajaxthen you are ignoring the normal usage of belief. it is a conclusion to which one arrives. causality, for example, is a tacit assumption for knowledge and existence in the known universe. i believe that the pizza place down the street stays open until 9pm tonight. i believe this because i'm pretty sure i saw a sign saying so on their window.

i don't merely believe causality, however. causality is a necessary aspect of my ability to exist.

and, whereas i can believe, that pizza parlor cannot. it can't believe that i'll be dropping by 5 minutes 'til closing time tonight, because pizza parlors don't have the capacity to believe.

[ajaxfetish]

then you are ignoring the normal usage of belief. it is a conclusion to which one arrives. causality, for example, is a tacit assumption for knowledge and existence in the known universe. i believe that the pizza place down the street stays open until 9pm tonight. i believe this because i'm pretty sure i saw a sign saying so on their window.

i don't merely believe causality, however. causality is a necessary aspect of my ability to exist.

and, whereas i can believe, that pizza parlor cannot. it can't believe that i'll be dropping by 5 minutes 'til closing time tonight, because pizza parlors don't have the capacity to believe.
And the pizza parlor can't assume, either. I don't see how the comparison is relevant. You could conceivably exist without causality. It would probably be impossible to function without it and without accepting it.

Ajax

edit: You're right about part of our confusion being differing meanings given to the word belief, but I disagree that I'm using an abnormal definition. I'm treating belief in a religious context, as putting faith in something unknown, and possibly unknowable. In this way it is very much the same as trusting in the existence of causality. Your definition and example are a much more everyday use of belief. You could verify that the pizza parlor is indeed open, either by calling or dropping by to check the sign. Belief in the sense I'm using it cannot necessarily be verified.

edit2: Also, the semantics of belief are irrelevant to the point I was originally making. Science doesn't start from nothing and build up. For scientific inquiry to work, some a priori assumptions must be made.

[Big_John]

You could conceivably exist without causality.i don't see how.


edit: You're right about part of our confusion being differing meanings given to the word belief, but I disagree that I'm using an abnormal definition. I'm treating belief in a religious context, as putting faith in something unknown, and possibly unknowable.i would argue that most theists wouldn't call their god "unknown" or "unknowable".

In this way it is very much the same as trusting in the existence of causality. Your definition and example are a much more everyday use of belief.this is the usage i was originally replying to (see Sigurd's post).


edit2: Also, the semantics of belief are irrelevant to the point I was originally making. Science doesn't start from nothing and build up. For scientific inquiry to work, some a priori assumptions must be made.but the tacit assumptions of existence of the observer, causality, correspondence of perception, etc., are not equivalent to "beliefs" in any normal use of the word, be it "faith" or "conclusion".

take a sporting contest.. soccer for example. it is a tacit assumption to the game that if the ball crosses the sideline, it is out of bounds. the players don't need to have faith that every time they play, this will turn out to be the case. and it's not a conclusion they arrived at by playing several times and observing the outcome. it is a rule, an underlying principle upon which the game hinges. in any normal usage of the word, is it meaningful to say that "the game of soccer believes a ball crossing the sideline is out of bounds"?

[Sigurd]

I did read your replies Louis and Sasaki... but I am not going to engage more participants.



Time, along with the other dimensions of the universe came into existence at the big bang. that is the generally accepted 'scientific' view.
You should read up on this subject... there are new theories out. Scientific proof is not written in stone. It has always been - this is how we believe it is now, pending new information.


This means that causality is not necessarily applicable to the origin of big bang singularity. the cosmological argument relies on a temporal cause.

Big bang begs the question of its origin.


making way too many assumptions. what "existed" "prior" to the universe is unknowable, at best. moreover, to talk about existence prior to the universe is absurd because it imposes the physical laws of our universe on something outside.

That is why I called it an exercise in philosophy. And the ideas of meta physical and immaterial is kinda outside physical laws...


understand that "cause" implies time (and space, actually). time and space as we understand them came into existence at the big bang. so it is not necessary that the big bang had a cause. it may even be absurd to posit that it should.

No. What is absurd is that a singularity of all that is, came out of nothing. Even the idea of a singularity is absurd. Besides, science is moving away from this theory. There are way too many problems with it.


how is a singularity an absurdity?

The idea that our entire universe existed inside a true singularity, that is: infinite temperature, infinite density, infinite small (no dimensions) becomes more and more absurd as you add all the infinite parameters.
Quantum mechanics does not allow true singularities anyway.


You just said "This means that at this point no laws or natural process existed", and now you want to rationalize gravity with the big bang expansion? in big bang theory, gravity would have not existed as a separate force at the beginning. your comparison is illogical.
Ah but good Ser, this was my exact point. I rebutted Viking's natural laws as the cause of the BB.

As a thought experiment, when did time and natural laws begin to exist? Plank time +1? At what point should the law of a black hole take effect? As I understand it... the conditions of making a black hole existed long after t = 0, yet there was an supposed expansion.
...

As I said new theories are out. Read up on:
Quantum gravity
String theory
M theory

[Marius Dynamite]

What I don't understand is why people follow religions. I thought of this when I heard that for the first time in history there are more Muslims in the world than Christians (mainly because the traditional Christians are turning into athiests).

Why must so many people follow the same beliefs? I feel most of us here have come up with their own theories of what God is and therefore follow our own exclusive religions.

My wonder is why everyone does not have this freedom of thought? - but then we know the answer, because people want to be part of a group, always have and always will.

So what do I believe? I feel we are so insignificant in the grand scheme of things that we cannot even begin to comprehend what God is. An all powerful being perhaps started our universe and observes it, this thing we think of as God, but he is not god because even he cannot comprehend how out of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING he was created. He must also wait until he dies to find out, or not as the case may be.

The other thing we should discuss is "What is the meaning of life?"

I heard a theory that we exist so that we might witness the universe. This is why we are given basic instincts to survive, like every other living creature. It does seem somewhat flawed though.

[Adrian II]

:oops: Sorry, yes, I did get out the wrong side of the bed today... but even so that effect is down to Heisenberg, not God :bow: https://img394.imageshack.us/img394/7788/roflsmileyol3.gif (https://imageshack.us)

[Big_John]

You should read up on this subject... there are new theories out. Scientific proof is not written in stone. It has always been - this is how we believe it is now, pending new information. i'm well-enough acquainted with m-theory and it's brethren. but i'm probably not capable of delving into the mathematics of those theories, are you? the lay-understanding of those theories doesn't do this discussion much good, as they are generally unification theories first and origin theories second (if at all). QG proposes a 'big bounce' anyway, doesn't it? that also obviates any need for a 'first cause'.


Big bang begs the question of its origin.not necessarily. that is the point.


Besides, science is moving away from this theory. There are way too many problems with it.that's a bit ambitious. the big bang is widely accepted since there is much observational evidence that supports the theory. you can say, however, that the theory is constantly being developed and amended to fit new findings/reconcile problems (e.g. inflation models).


No. What is absurd is that a singularity of all that is, came out of nothing. Even the idea of a singularity is absurd.

[...]

The idea that our entire universe existed inside a true singularity, that is: infinite temperature, infinite density, infinite small (no dimensions) becomes more and more absurd as you add all the infinite parameters.stating doesn't make it so. demonstrate to me how a singularity origin for the universe is necessarily absurd. while you're at it, could you demonstrate that an uncaused universe is necessarily absurd?


As a thought experiment, when did time and natural laws begin to exist? Plank time +1?"when did time begin to exist" is not a meaningful question.
At what point should the law of a black hole take effect? As I understand it... the conditions of making a black hole existed long after t = 0, yet there was an supposed expansion.
...i do not follow you here. can you clarify your point?


let's remember that we are talking about the logical necessity (or lack there of) of a 'first cause'. let's not go too far afield into QM/MT/etc for no good reason.

[seireikhaan]

Ahh...

Debate over the existence of a being so powerful it would be beyond our comprehension anyways...


:creep:

[Guildenstern]

Someone once said:

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain".

Reality and my rationality drive me to agree with the phrase, while my heart, my inner feelings, and some dramatic events in my life make me believe in Him. Or better, I feel the need to believe in Him (I’m not talking about religion here). Probably I just need to believe in something, like many people. I really don’t know. So I can’t express a clear opinion about this topic.

Regards

[Rhyfelwyr]

God exists because he told me so and he told me to set things on fire...

[Ronin]

Ahh...

Debate over the existence of a being so powerful it would be beyond our comprehension anyways...


:creep:

something we created can´t be beyond our own comprehension

[Sigurd]

[...]the lay-understanding of those theories doesn't do this discussion much good, as they are generally unification theories first and origin theories second (if at all).
[...]
stating doesn't make it so. demonstrate to me how a singularity origin for the universe is necessarily absurd. while you're at it, could you demonstrate that an uncaused universe is necessarily absurd?

I tire of this discussion and will not follow you point for point. I am a little supprised however that you are not pushing the lay-man understanding of these theories. One of the quantum mechanic pillars is that matter can not ever be created or destroyed. Oh, wait ... it will kill the singularity theory. There, I gave you a bullet to use against the creator theory.



"when did time begin to exist" is not a meaningful question. i do not follow you here. can you clarify your point?

Don't play daft with me Big_J.
You said it yourself. Before the Big bang no time nor space existed... But at plank time +1, Time was a reality and so was space.
Even though it was relatively small it contained all that ever was in our universe. QM states that nothing can be created or destroyed, so we have to assume that all the matter that today lights immeasurable stars including those who have collapsed into black holes existed in this tiny, tiny space. People here have talked about natural laws and we know that when something gets dense and heavy enough it will have a gravity large enough to trap even light. It will suck in all the matter close to it like a big vacuum cleaner.

At one point in the still expanding big bang these laws would start to work.
What I tried to explain earlier was.. The big bang had all the conditions for a super black hole from the onset and during a period of time after.
I haven't even touched the three big (horizon problem, smoothness problem and the flatness problem).
The classical Big bang with the singularity supports the ancient creatio ex nihilio. The new theories moves away from the singularity and supports the old ex nihil, nihil fit.
Maybe science can settle for this, but logic will contine to cry for answers to these unanswered questions. I am no Aquinas.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

something we created can´t be beyond our own comprehension

Other way around. "It" created us. ~;)

[Big_John]

I tire of this discussion and will not follow you point for point. I am a little supprised however that you are not pushing the lay-man understanding of these theories. One of the quantum mechanic pillars is that matter can not ever be created or destroyed.come again? conservation of matter is not part of QM. relativity's mass/energy equivalence replaced older conservation models.

Oh, wait ... it will kill the singularity theory. There, I gave you a bullet to use against the creator theory.yup, you've lost me again.



Don't play daft with me Big_J.believe me, i'm trying...

You said it yourself. Before the Big bang no time nor space existed... But at plank time +1, Time was a reality and so was space.
Even though it was relatively small it contained all that ever was in our universe. QM states that nothing can be created or destroyed, so we have to assume that all the matter that today lights immeasurable stars including those who have collapsed into black holes existed in this tiny, tiny space. People here have talked about natural laws and we know that when something gets dense and heavy enough it will have a gravity large enough to trap even light. It will suck in all the matter close to it like a big vacuum cleaner.

At one point in the still expanding big bang these laws would start to work.
What I tried to explain earlier was.. The big bang had all the conditions for a super black hole from the onset and during a period of time after.i don't see why the density of the early universe should be a problem for two reasons:

1) a singularity at the beginning of spacetime does not exist under the same conditions as singularities that form later from inside that spacetime. the universe is not expanding into something else; it is not analogous to an explosion. the big bang didn't happen at some small point, it happened everywhere. and again, remember that gravity was part of a unified force at this time (gravity would probably behave differently at big bang dimensions anyway).

2) a high density region that is not expanding will collapse, but this is not the universe. the universe expands, at an amazing rate iirc. schwarszchild radii and whatnot do not apply to the case of an expanding region. under pretty much any model that, afaik, the hubble constant would completely overwhelm any tendency towards collapse in an early universe.


I haven't even touched the three big (horizon problem, smoothness problem and the flatness problem).obviously an ambitious theory like the big bang is going to develop over time. inflation deals with the problems you mentioned.

The classical Big bang with the singularity supports the ancient creatio ex nihilio. The new theories moves away from the singularity and supports the old ex nihil, nihil fit.this is a very simplistic understanding of the situation. "something" and "nothing" are not terms we can really just throw around here. big bang may end up being a dead end theory (although it is almost certainly at least partially accurate), but that does not effect the logical issue here. even if quantum cosmology replaces a universal singularity with some sort of planck foam or something, and the big bang with a big bounce, we are not compelled to accept any sort of 'first cause' argument, mechanically speaking.

and logically speaking, we have no reason to think causality is more than just an internal feature of our universe.


Maybe science can settle for this, but logic will contine to cry for answers to these unanswered questions. I am no Aquinas.just because a question is unanswered doesn't make it meaningful. absurd questions, for example.



also, i believe we are in over our heads in trying to pull philosophical truths out of origin cosmology. our brains just aren't designed to do that. we can't even really visualize spacetime. simple, flat, 4-dimentsional spacetime. not to mention curved spacetime or emergent spacetime at a big bang event....

terms we normally use to describe things, like "where" and "when" just don't apply. mathematics is the only thing that can properly describe it. and there are many ways to describe it, different coordinatizations and solutions. but you can't really translate that kind of math into words. "where" and "when" just doesn't mean what we think they do/want them to.

[Papewaio]

One of the quantum mechanic pillars is that matter can not ever be created or destroyed.

Incorrect virtual particles are created in a vacuum.

[Samurai Waki]

God is akin to a block of cheese. At first it tastes good, smells good, and hell, looks good. But then after awhile the cheese gets moldy, so you have to pick those pieces off, eventually theres no more cheese left... so now you just have a bunch of moldy hunks of old cheese. :inquisitive:

[Ronin]

here´s something I never understood and I hope someone can help me out here..

If Jesus Christ was jewish.....why the spanish name? :sweatdrop: :juggle2:

[macsen rufus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane

One of the quantum mechanic pillars is that matter can not ever be created or destroyed.

Incorrect virtual particles are created in a vacuum.

Glad I'm not the only pedant :bow: QM, thermodynamics, whatever, state that energy cannot be created or destroyed and CAN be tranformed into matter or v/v.

Creation ex nihilo is an observable fact, consider Hawking radiation, and the virtual particles Pape mentions. As an observable fact it cannot be dismissed as a logical impossibility.

Overly-simplified for illustrative purposes: 0 = (+1) + (-1) -- if for any reason the (-1) is unobservable (ie it's slipped over the event horizon of a black hole) the (+1) escapes and appears "out of nowhere".

Where there was nothing, now there are two entities -- recombine them again and there will be nothing once more. Strictly there has been nothing all along, but selective observation creates the illusion. Multiply this by symmetry in a lot of dimensions (I believe 26 is fashionable these days?) then there are countless possibilities for creation "ex nihilo". Causeless to boot, for what cause can act on nothing?

[Banquo's Ghost]

God is akin to a block of cheese. At first it tastes good, smells good, and hell, looks good. But then after awhile the cheese gets moldy, so you have to pick those pieces off, eventually theres no more cheese left... so now you just have a bunch of moldy hunks of old cheese. :inquisitive:

If one's faith is akin to supermarket sandwich slices, perhaps.

Yet some of the finest cheese is so valued precisely because of the mould, grown through its very being, and which, over time, has matured in flavour to a rich, bittersweet experience.

(And like piety, best served with a robust glass of port).

[ICantSpellDawg]

If one's faith is akin to supermarket sandwich slices, perhaps.

Yet some of the finest cheese is so valued precisely because of the mould, grown through its very being, and which, over time, has matured in flavour to a rich, bittersweet experience.

(And like piety, best served with a robust glass of port).

I love figurative arguments. They can so easily be pulled in any direction. Kind of like string cheese...

[Samurai Waki]

Everyone was just getting so deep into physics and trig that i felt it necessary to make an absurd statement like comparing god to cheese.

[Big_John]

lol @ "trig".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This whole debate seems to be suffering from a problem of definitions.

Atheism is not the belief that God does not exist.

Atheism is not holding a belief.

"God Exists" and "God does not Exist" are both beliefs, theistic positions.

I feel I've been here before actually....

Anyway, "I don't Believe God exists" and "I don't believe God doesn't exist" are the rejections of the above statements, they mean the same thing, they are both atheistic.

So, the issue is:

Prove God does Exist, or prove He doesn't, just demonstrating that the other position has no foundation isn't good enough. Given that every culture has independantly arrived at a belief in a higher being the Atheists are laggin behind.

[Big_John]

Prove God does Exist, or prove He doesn't, just demonstrating that the other position has no foundation isn't good enough. Given that every culture has independantly arrived at a belief in a higher being the Atheists are laggin behind.independently? doubtful.

and we're discussing a logical possibility. the proclivity of societies to behave a certain way is relevant how?

[Lt Nevermind]

This whole debate seems to be suffering from a problem of definitions.

Seems like the first reasonable statement in this thread.

[Navaros]

Yes God exists because nothing else makes sense. A complex ordered universe coming into being via nothing other than random happenstance is nothing short of outright insane.

Big bang definitely makes no sense. Where did the matter used in the big bang come from? Where did the scientific laws that govern the universe come from? "Science" advocates like to pretend as if the the big bang theory explains everything and it's case closed. But really, it doesn't explain anything.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I believe in a God now. I've changed my mind and am no longer an agnostic. Why you may ask? Why not.

I find myself becoming more and more Catholic as I get older.

[Ronin]

Yes God exists because nothing else makes sense. A complex ordered universe coming into being via nothing other than random happenstance is nothing short of outright insane.

Big bang definitely makes no sense. Where did the matter used in the big bang come from? Where did the scientific laws that govern the universe come from? "Science" advocates like to pretend as if the the big bang theory explains everything and it's case closed. But really, it doesn't explain anything.

I´m still waiting for explanation on why JC...the jewish guy had a spanish name :whip:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Yes God exists because nothing else makes sense. A complex ordered universe coming into being via nothing other than random happenstance is nothing short of outright insane.

Big bang definitely makes no sense. Where did the matter used in the big bang come from? Where did the scientific laws that govern the universe come from? "Science" advocates like to pretend as if the the big bang theory explains everything and it's case closed. But really, it doesn't explain anything.

Even science admits that this is only a theory, and as such is not and cannot be proven to be true. Therefore, atheists believe in the lack of God as much as Christians believe in a God. Neither can be proven correct. The problem is that militant atheists accept scientific theory as, pardon the pun, gospel. Some Christians do the same thing from the opposite point of view - though, from my personal experience, less Christians do this than atheists. Hence Christians using the term "faith", and atheists using the term "fact".

No side can be proven right. There is only belief. Everything we do here is purely theory.

[Adrian II]

Big bang definitely makes no sense. Where did the matter used in the big bang come from? Where did the scientific laws that govern the universe come from? "Science" advocates like to pretend as if the the big bang theory explains everything and it's case closed. But really, it doesn't explain anything.Good heavens, you always bring a smile to my face.

Something tells me that you never even considered looking into Big Bang theories and some of the issues involved. The same applies to certain claims concerning science made by others in this thread. It is hilarious that you call the greatest minds of modern physics and astronomy 'insane' even though their theories accurately predict a host of phenomena, whereas the religious hocus pocus you offer can't even predict when my toast will burn. And this in the name of a religion that preaches humility.

Ecce homo, eh? :coffeenews:

[Craterus]

Big bang definitely makes no sense. Where did the matter used in the big bang come from? Where did the scientific laws that govern the universe come from? "Science" advocates like to pretend as if the the big bang theory explains everything and it's case closed. But really, it doesn't explain anything.

And where did God come from? At some point, something must have come from nothing.


Yes God exists because nothing else makes sense.

:laugh4: It would take weeks to list every single contradiction and logical fallacy within Christianity (as that seems to be the religion most people are referring to here).

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

And where did God come from? At some point, something must have come from nothing.

A) God is beyond human understanding.
B) God was always there.

A + B = C

C) God was always there, and we are unable to fathom how.




:laugh4: It would take weeks to list every single contradiction and logical fallacy within Christianity (as that seems to be the religion most people are referring to here).

And just as long to refer to logical fallacies within atheism. Remember, even the Big Bang is only a theory.

[HoreTore]

And just as long to refer to logical fallacies within atheism. Remember, even the Big Bang is only a theory.

What does the big bang theory got to do with atheism?

Atheism is very simple; it's simply not believing in a god. There is nothing more to it. So at best, there can be just one logical fallacy. And unless you're more than slightly retarded, that shouldn't take weeks.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

What does the big bang theory got to do with atheism?

It is a theory that some atheists attempt to use to "disprove" the Christian God.

[HoreTore]

It is a theory that some atheists attempt to use to "disprove" the Christian God.

That may be, but it still has zero to do with atheism itself.

Also, it's not an attempt to "disprove" anything, it's an attempt to solve the big question of where we are from. And I must say, it is a lot better than the lack of explanation found in the bible.

[Big_John]

It is a theory that some atheists attempt to use to "disprove" the Christian God.no.

the point of it in arguments about existence of gods is to demonstrate that the cosmological argument may not be sound. since spacetime is theorized to have been created at the big bang, origin arguments relying on temporal cause are potentially fallacious at best, wholly nonsensical at worst. that's all.

'big bounce' models also obviate the need for a creator since the cyclical universe can be eternal in those models.

i usually see theist bring it up before atheists anyway.

[Craterus]

A) God is beyond human understanding.
B) God was always there.

A + B = C

C) God was always there, and we are unable to fathom how.




And just as long to refer to logical fallacies within atheism. Remember, even the Big Bang is only a theory.

Always there? Nothing can have always existed. For something to exist, it must have a beginning.

And no, I don't use the Big Bang theory because I don't understand it. How can nothing* collide to make something?

My point is that religion is outdated and clearly man-made. Civilisations invented god(s) to fill the gaps in their knowledge and to control others. With advances in science, we now know the causes of things that were once thought to be the actions of deities (weather, disease etc.) One day we will undoubtedly know more about the remaining grey areas and render faith obsolete.

*Like I said, I don't understand it. Something about anti-matter but that's about as much as I know. And care.

[ajaxfetish]

Even science admits that this is only a theory, and as such is not and cannot be proven to be true.
I think it's silly to call something 'only a theory,' as if a theory has less value than something else. What do you want? Facts? Theories are built out of facts, and are a higher level of achievement than facts.


Always there? Nothing can have always existed. For something to exist, it must have a beginning.

I don't see how this is necessarily true.

Ajax

[Strike For The South]

Ill open with this Ill expand on it tmrw. Sorry

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yes God exists because nothing else makes sense. A complex ordered universe coming into being via nothing other than random happenstance is nothing short of outright insane absurd.

Fixed, courtesy of Albert Camus. :bow:

(Actually, Navaros, you might enjoy reading his essay, The Myth of Sisyphus).

[Samurai Waki]

...and after all, god's second mistake was women. :clown:

[Sigurd]

I am sorry I haven’t been able to get back until now.
Since my last post both Big_J and Pape made replies that oppose my statements.

I will be the first to admit that I have not a complete grasp of the science involved in the cosmological origins of our universe.
I do hie from the scientific having a Masters in information technology. But this is not my field.

I named the one of the pillars that QM is built on, the Lomonosov-Lavoisier Law. Having to check it, I can’t find a direct reference for this.
I will have to look into what Pape is refereeing to at a later time when my schedule makes an opening.
However, I will post my current musings regarding this.

First the singularity problem. QM does not allow it because as I understand it, all objects however small or big, have the attribute of both particle and wave. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle which was adopted into QM as QM-probabilities forbids any object from being perfectly localized (mass times velocity or energy and time). Even with the lack of a harmonization between QM and general relativity, we can confidently assert that since objects cannot be precisely localized, perfect singularities cannot exist.

From nothing comes nothing. (Ex nihil, nihil fit).
I must here make a definition that has not been made before in this thread. There is a significant difference between the philosophical (e.g. theology) nothing and the scientific nothing.
The philosophical nothing is exactly what lay-men believe is nothing, an absolutely empty void.
The scientific nothing or vacuum has undergone a great change since it was first coined.

“Today vacuum is a bubbling, brewing source of matter and energy and might contain the most matter in the universe. If you take one cubic of empty space and place it in a box, it will contain a host of particles, waves, fields, energies and interactions. Even if you pump it for every atom it will still contain lots of electromagnetic waves or photons. If the walls of the box were opaque, they would radiate long-wavelength photons in thermal equilibrium with their surroundings. If the walls were transparent, dozens of photons of all wavelengths from stars in the Milky Way Galaxy would pass through the box. Finally, about a billion CMB photons from the “big bang” itself (meaning the origin of the universe) would be present in every cubic meter in our universe. A box in intergalactic space is also bathed in cosmic rays of various energies and from all directions. Neutrinos (tiny neutral particles with extremely low mass and traveling near the speed of light) in at least three varieties constantly whiz through the box without noticeably interacting with anything else. Furthermore, some theories predict other weakly interacting particles flying about. Every photon or electromagnetic wave is a manifestation of combined, changing electric and magnetic fields.
Other fields, such as gravitational fields, are always present, and these carry vast amounts of energy. Even if all particles and all electric and magnetic fields could magically be eliminated, gravitational fields apparently cannot be eliminated, even in principle”.
(Taken from an article on vacuum and shortened by me).

Particles appearing out of nothing in vacuum and disappearing again sounds to me as not related to Creatio ex nihilo at all.

It is always dangerous to mix religion and science. Maybe in the near future a new theory will explain how QM and singularities can co-exist, but right now they can’t and science is currently stating that there was no creation… there has always been matter and energy in some form. Well… if you claim that the universe was not a temporal event (the big bang/ creation ex nihilo), then the universe must be eternal, and yet material. Philosophy will still cry begging the question as it can’t comprehend there not being a beginning of all there is.

I will still retain my position as agnostic and will dethrone any atheist usurper trying to weasel into our agnostic beliefs. Trying the, “we don’t believe because we don’t know”… that is our turf. If you want to join us, then use the right definition.

[Ronin]

It is a theory that some atheists attempt to use to "disprove" the Christian God.

the big bang theory doesn´t have anything with believing or not in a god.....who´s to say that this supposed 'god' didn´t set the big bang in motion himself/herself/itself???

:juggle2:


as for 'the universe has to have come from something and science can´t explain where from'

well..that´s the difference between atheists and theists.....
myself as an atheist I can reach a certain point where I say 'well, I don´t know the answer to that, and I´ll probably never know' and I´m ok with that
...as opposed to a theist that reaches that point...and makes up an answer.

[Ronin]

Yes God exists because nothing else makes sense. A complex ordered universe coming into being via nothing other than random happenstance is nothing short of outright insane.


Navaros,
when you look at it in a logical way you must realize you follow a religion that is basically the product of a very naive man who´s wife cheated on him and then fed him a story about becoming pregnant without having sexual intercourse with anybody.....

a discussion on logic and what makes 'sense' might not be a strong point for you to take on this discussion my friend.

[Raz]

Bah, not everyone is roman-catholic or christian.

I just wanted to add my piece into this thread... <_<

[macsen rufus]

Trying to solve this conundrum by reason and philosophy will only ever give us answers about the human mind, not the ultimate ground of being. :bow:

[Adrian II]

Trying to solve this conundrum by reason and philosophy will only ever give us answers about the human mind, not the ultimate ground of being. :bow:Well said. :bow:

The thread reminds me of my school days, of the debates you tend to have when you are 16 and you are in some ramshackle teenage attic with your friends and a bottle, discussing the meaning of life, the supernatural, girls and all that jazz. No ill-digested notions of science, quotes from dead white males or ideas stolen from popmusicians ever settle these issues. In the end you realise that some people will just never get it, but that most of them are okay regardless and that you will simply have to learn to get along with the rest.

As an atheist I came away from all that with a couple of insights.

The first is that there is no meaning to a man's life unless you decide for yourself what shall be the meaning of your life. Because it's up to you. Because no authority can impose a meaning on your life, be it reinforced by sweet promises or fire and brimstone, unless you deliver yourself to that authority first. There is always a moment a choice. Consequently, you come to recognise the element of choice in other peoples' beliefs. Sometimes you can almost isolate the moment when they surrendered, when they delivered their fate unto some God or a philosophical concept of Nature, when they gave up, so to speak, and hid behind a superior force or power.

Second, I have never suffered from the eschatological fetish. Meaning: the notion that history is linear, that the world or mankind are going somewhere in particular, toward some pre-ordained or naturally induced end state, be it classless society, paradise or enlightenment. For (amateur) historians in particular this is a huge eye-opener. It enables you to dismantle fake notions of progress or causation and allows you to see, to observe and understand without being bound by the restrictions of linear concepts.

No doubt others came away from these debates with totally different insights. I find it interesting to learn about them. Instead of debating teh old existnce of God I'd rather discuss the consequences of God's existence/non-existence for peoples' lives. Young people, preferably. Im getting on in years myself, so..
https://img265.imageshack.us/img265/6541/invalidgk5.gif (https://imageshack.us)

[seireikhaan]

Well said. :bow:

The thread reminds me of my school days, of the debates you tend to have when you are 16 and you are in some ramshackle teenage attic with your friends and a bottle, discussing the meaning of life, the supernatural, girls and all that jazz. No ill-digested notions of science, quotes from dead white males or ideas stolen from popmusicians ever settle these issues. In the end you realise that some people will just never get it, but that most of them are okay regardless and that you will simply have to learn to get along with the rest.

As an atheist I came away from all that with a couple of insights.

The first is that there is no meaning to a man's life unless you decide for yourself what shall be the meaning of your life. Because it's up to you. Because no authority can impose a meaning on your life, be it reinforced by sweet promises or fire and brimstone, unless you deliver yourself to that authority first. There is always a moment a choice. Consequently, you come to recognise the element of choice in other peoples' beliefs. Sometimes you can almost isolate the moment when they surrendered, when they delivered their fate unto some God or a philosophical concept of Nature, when they gave up, so to speak, and hid behind a superior force or power.

Second, I have never suffered from the eschatological fetish. Meaning: the notion that history is linear, that the world or mankind are going somewhere in particular, toward some pre-ordained or naturally induced end state, be it classless society, paradise or enlightenment. For (amateur) historians in particular this is a huge eye-opener. It enables you to dismantle fake notions of progress or causation and allows you to see, to observe and understand without being bound by the restrictions of linear concepts.

No doubt others came away from these debates with totally different insights. I find it interesting to learn about them. Instead of debating teh old existnce of God I'd rather discuss the consequences of God's existence/non-existence for peoples' lives. Young people, preferably. Im getting on in years myself, so..
https://img265.imageshack.us/img265/6541/invalidgk5.gif (https://imageshack.us)
:bow: Well said yourself, good sir. I've found these debates on whether or not God exists to be rather absurd in their own right, as such a being can never be proven or disproven by limited human insight. As for my experiences on the matter... Well, I'm still exploring it, to be honest. Not really sure one way or the other.

[CBR]

Remember, even the Big Bang is only a theory.
Only?? In science "theory" is the best thing possible. There is really nothing above that. That does not mean a theory won't change over time or even be replaced by another but that is what makes science different from faith.


Trying the, “we don’t believe because we don’t know”… that is our turf. If you want to join us, then use the right definition.
An atheist is just about the "we don't believe" bit. Whether the reasoning is based on "knowing" or "not knowing" is pointless.

For those who loves to put people in boxes, there are lots of boxes like agnostic atheist or agnostic theist, just to name a few.

We can also use Richard Dawkins and his "spectrum of probabilities":


Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.'
Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'


If one uses "God" as some vague size the more unknown that size is and I'm close to 6, the more specific "God" is with rituals and laws etc that affects us here in the fact based world Im getting closer to a 7 but it will be difficult to be a complete 7.

Replace "God" with "flat Earth" and Im a 7 but yes I admit Im a rabid follower of the Earth is round society :beam:


CBR

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well said. :bow:

The thread reminds me of my school days, of the debates you tend to have when you are 16 and you are in some ramshackle teenage attic with your friends and a bottle, discussing the meaning of life, the supernatural, girls and all that jazz. No ill-digested notions of science, quotes from dead white males or ideas stolen from popmusicians ever settle these issues. In the end you realise that some people will just never get it, but that most of them are okay regardless and that you will simply have to learn to get along with the rest.

As an atheist I came away from all that with a couple of insights.

The first is that there is no meaning to a man's life unless you decide for yourself what shall be the meaning of your life. Because it's up to you. Because no authority can impose a meaning on your life, be it reinforced by sweet promises or fire and brimstone, unless you deliver yourself to that authority first. There is always a moment a choice. Consequently, you come to recognise the element of choice in other peoples' beliefs. Sometimes you can almost isolate the moment when they surrendered, when they delivered their fate unto some God or a philosophical concept of Nature, when they gave up, so to speak, and hid behind a superior force or power.

Second, I have never suffered from the eschatological fetish. Meaning: the notion that history is linear, that the world or mankind are going somewhere in particular, toward some pre-ordained or naturally induced end state, be it classless society, paradise or enlightenment. For (amateur) historians in particular this is a huge eye-opener. It enables you to dismantle fake notions of progress or causation and allows you to see, to observe and understand without being bound by the restrictions of linear concepts.

No doubt others came away from these debates with totally different insights. I find it interesting to learn about them. Instead of debating teh old existnce of God I'd rather discuss the consequences of God's existence/non-existence for peoples' lives. Young people, preferably. Im getting on in years myself, so..
https://img265.imageshack.us/img265/6541/invalidgk5.gif (https://imageshack.us)

I largely agree. The moment that I surrendered to a Roman Catholic God was very recently.

If there is no reason to believe in God then there is most likely no reason not to. My family has believed in the Church for centuries and I believe that life is better when people live by their Catholic faith and laws.

On the flip side, I do not have a linear view of history. The world will end and Jesus will come irrespective of the amount of liberty or totalitarian government. The concept of Heaven on Earth prior to the end times is not a Christian concept, and I don't buy it. Jesus said "I come not to bring peace but division (the sword)". We must do what we can and encourage others to live better.

We are floating and it is our job to decide what our life means, but I find that it is better to float with some superlative borders - the idea that you want an open mind, but not one so open that your brain falls out.

[atheotes]

QFT...


Civilisations invented god(s) to fill the gaps in their knowledge and to control others. With advances in science, we now know the causes of things that were once thought to be the actions of deities (weather, disease etc.) One day we will undoubtedly know more about the remaining grey areas and render faith obsolete.


Using Richard Dawkins' classification i am a "De facto atheist" simply because we are still not in a position to explain everything using science.

[Viking]

Nothing can have always existed. For something to exist, it must have a beginning.

Then how come the universe hasn't ceased to exist already? :confused:



:bow: Well said yourself, good sir. I've found these debates on whether or not God exists to be rather absurd in their own right, as such a being can never be proven or disproven by limited human insight. As for my experiences on the matter... Well, I'm still exploring it, to be honest. Not really sure one way or the other.

Then one wonders why it is not absurd to explore it as well, as one can never reach a satisfying conclusion.



Only?? In science "theory" is the best thing possible. There is really nothing above that. That does not mean a theory won't change over time or even be replaced by another but that is what makes science different from faith.


An atheist is just about the "we don't believe" bit. Whether the reasoning is based on "knowing" or "not knowing" is pointless.

For those who loves to put people in boxes, there are lots of boxes like agnostic atheist or agnostic theist, just to name a few.

We can also use Richard Dawkins and his "spectrum of probabilities":


Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.'
Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'


If one uses "God" as some vague size the more unknown that size is and I'm close to 6, the more specific "God" is with rituals and laws etc that affects us here in the fact based world Im getting closer to a 7 but it will be difficult to be a complete 7.

Replace "God" with "flat Earth" and Im a 7 but yes I admit Im a rabid follower of the Earth is round society :beam:


CBR

One wonders if God believes in a higher entity above him? Will he go to hell if he does not? Obviously, any God existing must have creator also since he is so perfectly constructed. :confused:

[Adrian II]

Well, I'm still exploring it, to be honest. Not really sure one way or the other.You'll come round to our view yet. You have too much grey matter, ha!


Grey matter.. sssso deliciousss..

https://img142.imageshack.us/img142/2569/skullgifbm6.gif (https://imageshack.us)

[Dutch_guy]

Then how come the universe hasn't ceased to exist already? :confused:

What exactly is the point you're trying to make with the above ?

:balloon2:

[Rhyfelwyr]

And where did God come from? At some point, something must have come from nothing.

I used to get bogged down in that line of thought a lot. But then that line of thought can obviosly not be correct, since obviosly there is something going on in the universe, even if it is an illusion or not quite what is seems. I keep trying to imaging nothing, not even blackness which is what comes to mind at first. But then eventually I get a little light-headed and don't really get anywhere.

As for that scale of 1-7, I can see my progression. My dad prides himself on logic, and that probably influenced me at first. When I was really young (ie 5 or 6), I would have said I was at 7 on that scale. I didn't believe in god because it seemed silly. Then I would have moved to a 6, accepting that it is possible but extremely unlikely God exists, probably the typical 'logical' approach. Since then because of different reasons I've moved up to a 3, maybe even nearing a 2. At least I aim to be a 2, even if I should really be a 1 according to the Bible and the "through faith alone you shall be saved idea". In reality though I may come out closer to 3.

[Craterus]

With Sigurd's distinction in mind, I'll make it clear that I am talking about a philosophical nothingness. But I'm not too sure if it affects my point.

Anyway, I'm failing to see how my point can be disputed. If you accept time as a constant, then you must accept the need for things to have a beginning. Just keep asking yourself "What about before that?". You have to reach the conclusion that even time must have had a beginning, no matter how many millions of thousands of millennia ago that was.

This argument (which I hope makes some sense) isn't necessarily for or against atheism/theism. I'm just trying to point out what I see as a flaw in the Christian - and maybe some other religions? - belief that God, assuming there is such a thing, has always existed.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Only?? In science "theory" is the best thing possible. There is really nothing above that. That does not mean a theory won't change over time or even be replaced by another but that is what makes science different from faith.

Creationism is also a theory. ~;)

[ICantSpellDawg]

Creationism is also a theory. ~;)

But not a scientific theory.

[Kagemusha]

With Sigurd's distinction in mind, I'll make it clear that I am talking about a philosophical nothingness. But I'm not too sure if it affects my point.

Anyway, I'm failing to see how my point can be disputed. If you accept time as a constant, then you must accept the need for things to have a beginning. Just keep asking yourself "What about before that?". You have to reach the conclusion that even time must have had a beginning, no matter how many millions of thousands of millennia ago that was.

This argument (which I hope makes some sense) isn't necessarily for or against atheism/theism. I'm just trying to point out what I see as a flaw in the Christian - and maybe some other religions? - belief that God, assuming there is such a thing, has always existed.

And what was before the start? Nothing? What is nothing? I dont think there is such thing in universe we can observe, even in vacuum there are particles, so could we then conclude that nothing is non existent, because it cant be observed? I think as in perspective of human being, my ability to observe things in universe is so limited that i would rather not make any really big statements about it, what and what not there are or can be. We should also remember that those who believe in some kind of higher power, only can try to observe it from their limited perspective, which would be very flawed also. I think this whole debate is non issue, because if there is or was a such entity that acted as catalysm, in starting what we call the universe, our importance to it as individuals would probably be about the same amount as any other glump of particles, so in another words it could really be said that god loves us all. You or me as much as an bacteria or virus, or a helium atom. If there is a such entity. Which is completely matter of faith, rather then observation, since it could hardly be observed from our limited view.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

But not a scientific theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design

[Husar]

And what was before the start? Nothing? What is nothing? I dont think there is such thing in universe we can observe, even in vacuum there are particles, so could we then conclude that nothing is non existent, because it cant be observed?
I heard there's a whole lot of nothing in every atom.


This argument (which I hope makes some sense) isn't necessarily for or against atheism/theism. I'm just trying to point out what I see as a flaw in the Christian - and maybe some other religions? - belief that God, assuming there is such a thing, has always existed.
Well, if time is the fourth dimension, then what if God is a being in the fifth or sixth dimension? :inquisitive:

This little video might explain my point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4

~D

[ajaxfetish]

Anyway, I'm failing to see how my point can be disputed. If you accept time as a constant, then you must accept the need for things to have a beginning. Just keep asking yourself "What about before that?". You have to reach the conclusion that even time must have had a beginning, no matter how many millions of thousands of millennia ago that was.

I'm afraid I'm just not following you. Thinking back (way back) to math classes, I recall the idea of number lines and of infinity. If I have a line at, say, y=2, it stretches forever to the negative and the positive. Whatever x may be, y remains 2. The line has no beginning and no end. As a human being, I don't feel capable of comprehending that, but I accept it nonetheless. If x were time, the line would have always existed, and will never cease to exist. If the line were y=x, it would be always changing, but would still be infinite (eternal if x is time). Just because I can't wrap my mind around something doesn't mean it can't exist. Just because I can't comprehend having always existed doesn't mean something can't have always existed. Like you, I'm not necessarily talking about God. I just don't buy the notion that everything must have a beginning.

Ajax

[CBR]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design
Claiming that creationism and/or intelligent design is science does not make it science though and the link you provided explains why it cannot be considered science. Creationism hardly entered the realm of a scientific hypothesis.

Just one random quote:


Empirical science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation and repeated testing of hypotheses and theories. Intelligent design proponents seek to change this fundamental basis of science[129] by eliminating "methodological naturalism" from science[130] and replacing it with what the leader of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. Johnson, calls "theistic realism"

In other words the followers of intelligent design really would love to have the term science attached to their beliefs, but the only way they can do that is to fundamentally change what science is and add supernatural elements to it.


CBR

[Viking]

Anyway, I'm failing to see how my point can be disputed. If you accept time as a constant, then you must accept the need for things to have a beginning.

Time is not a constant, it's relative.



What exactly is the point you're trying to make with the above ?

:balloon2:


Just keep asking yourself "What about before that?". You have to reach the conclusion that even time must have had a beginning, no matter how many millions of thousands of millennia ago that was.

But how did it start? What caused the start? How can anything happen if there is no time?

[Husar]

Claiming that creationism and/or intelligent design is science does not make it science though and the link you provided explains why it cannot be considered science. Creationism hardly entered the realm of a scientific hypothesis.
I'm glad it's not science because it's obviously better. ~;)

[Ronin]

I'm glad it's not science because it's obviously better. ~;)


sure it is....:inquisitive: whatever makes you sleep well at night I guess

it´s not even the most interesting fairy tale out there....

check this one out...


Norse Creation myth....
Odin and Ymir

In the beginning of time, there was nothing: neither sand, nor sea, nor cool waves. Neither the heaven nor earth existed. Instead, long before the earth was made, Niflheim was made, and in it a spring gave rise to twelve rivers. To the south was Muspell, a region of heat and brightness guarded by Surt, a giant who carried a flaming sword. To the north was frigid Ginnungagap, where the rivers froze and all was ice. Where the sparks and warm winds of Muspell reached the south side of frigid Ginnungagap, the ice thawed and dripped, and from the drips thickened and formed the shape of a man. His name was Ymir, the first of and ancestor of the frost-giants.

As the ice dripped more, it formed a cow, and from her teats flowed four rivers of milk that fed Ymir. The cow fed on the salt of the rime ice, and as she licked a man's head began to emerge. By the end of the third day of her licking, the whole man had emerged, and his name was Buri. He had a son named Bor, who married Bestla, a daughter of one of the giants. Bor and Bestla had three sons, one of whom was Odin, the most powerful of the gods.

Ymir was a frost-giant, but not a god, and eventually he turned to evil. After a struggle between the giant and the young gods, Bor's three sons killed Ymir. So much blood flowed from his wounds that all the frost-giants were drowned but one, who survived only by builiding an ark for himself and his familly. Bor's sons dragged Ymir's immense body to the center of Ginnungagap, and from him they made the earth. Ymir's blood became the sea, his bones became the rocks and crags, and his hair became the trees. Bor's sons took Ymir's skull and with it made the sky. In it they fixed sparks and molten slag from Muspell to make the stars, and other sparks they set to move in paths just below the sky. They threw Ymir's brains into the sky and made the clouds. The earth is a disk, and they set up Ymir's eyelashes to keep the giants at the edges of that disk.

On the sea shore, Bor's sons found two logs and made people out of them. One son gave them breath and life, the second son gave them consciousness and movement, and the third gave them faces, speech, hearing, and sight. From this man and woman came all humans thereafter, just as all the gods were descended from the sons of Bor.

Odin and his brothers had set up the sky and stars, but otherwise they left the heavens unlit. Long afterwards, one of the descendants of those first two people that the brothers created had two children. Those two children were so beautiful that their father named the son Moon and the daughter Sol. The gods were jealous already and, when they heard of the father's arrogance, they pulled the brother and sister up to the sky and set them to work. Sol drives the chariot that carries the sun across the skies, and she drives so fast across the skies of the northland because she is chased by a giant wolf each day. Moon likewise takes a course across the sky each night, but not so swiftly because he is not so harried.

The gods did leave one pathway from earth to heaven. That is the bridge that appears in the sky as a rainbow, and its perfect arc and brilliant colors are a sign of its origin with the gods. It nonetheless will not last for ever, because it will break when the men of Muspell try to cross it into heaven.
a giant carrying a flaming sword!!! how cool is that?, a giant wolf running around..the old testament ain´t got nothing on this....you gotta keep the people entertained!

[Craterus]

I'm ready to admit that bringing time into it didn't make sense, even to me.

I've had another think though and if time is infinite, and it must be, then there must have been a time before God, thus he cannot have always existed.

[Husar]

I'm ready to admit that bringing time into it didn't make sense, even to me.
Yes, but why follow up with this nonsense then? ~;)


I've had another think though and if time is infinite, and it must be, then there must have been a time before God, thus he cannot have always existed.
No, if God is above time, he might have even created time, or they're both infinite and coexist infinitely, it's possible that God can even travel in time etc., maybe not even travel, maybe the concept of time does not even apply to him at all, there are a lot of possibilities but applying simple laws and physics to God doesn't make a lot of sense, especially since the laws of physics which we know are just what we made of the observations we can make, they're models to help us understand our surroundings/reality, the "real reality" might well be different, if there is such a thing at all, all we have is sensory input which is interpreted by our brain. I for example have no ability to sense radio waves but that doesn't mean they don't exist. If a blind person is crippled in comparison to a person who can see then humans are crippled in comparison to bats which can "see" perfectly well even in the dark because they have active sensors while human senses are all passive.

Ok, I digress, what I am trying to say is there are things which can only be explained by thinking outside the boundaries of our physical sandbox, I'm sure if you show someone in the middle ages how a remote control works they'd call it witchcraft and burn you as a heretic. God may or may not be but if God exists, him being "supernatural" may just mean he's a being of a higher dimension or what we call and perceive as dimensions, a being that, as the bible says, we cannot understand as we are confined to four dimensions and cannot even influence/travel in one of them (time).

[Viking]

Yes, but why follow up with this nonsense then? ~;)


No, if God is above time, he might have even created time, or they're both infinite and coexist infinitely, it's possible that God can even travel in time etc., maybe not even travel, maybe the concept of time does not even apply to him at all, there are a lot of possibilities but applying simple laws and physics to God doesn't make a lot of sense, especially since the laws of physics which we know are just what we made of the observations we can make, they're models to help us understand our surroundings/reality, the "real reality" might well be different, if there is such a thing at all, all we have is sensory input which is interpreted by our brain. I for example have no ability to sense radio waves but that doesn't mean they don't exist. If a blind person is crippled in comparison to a person who can see then humans are crippled in comparison to bats which can "see" perfectly well even in the dark because they have active sensors while human senses are all passive.

Ok, I digress, what I am trying to say is there are things which can only be explained by thinking outside the boundaries of our physical sandbox, I'm sure if you show someone in the middle ages how a remote control works they'd call it witchcraft and burn you as a heretic. God may or may not be but if God exists, him being "supernatural" may just mean he's a being of a higher dimension or what we call and perceive as dimensions, a being that, as the bible says, we cannot understand as we are confined to four dimensions and cannot even influence/travel in one of them (time).

Tsk tsk, super-God that created God (and the other gods) can do even more than that. He exist in an even higher dimension that God (and the other gods) is not able to imagine. :shifty:

[HoreTore]

Tsk tsk, super-God that created God (and the other gods) can do even more than that. He exist in an even higher dimension that God (and the other gods) is not able to imagine. :shifty:

Sounds like a pyramid scam to me.

[Husar]

Tsk tsk, super-God that created God (and the other gods) can do even more than that. He exist in an even higher dimension that God (and the other gods) is not able to imagine. :shifty:
I'm aware of that possibility, that you find it funny doesn't make it wrong. :inquisitive:

That I find it somewhat plausible doesn't make it right either, of course.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Why is there anything at all?:wall:

Maybe we humans just cannot understand some things. Or maybe its just me, but either way it seems if this debate is going to get bogged down on the issue of where either god or a godless universe came from, we are just going to keep going round in rather speculative circles.

[Husar]

Well, if anyone actually knows a completely 100% objective truth and can prove it, I'd be happy to see it posted here. ~D

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, if anyone actually knows a completely 100% objective truth and can prove it, I'd be happy to see it posted here. ~D

Shall I begin work on a longevity potion, or are you confident in the human race?

[Adrian II]

Well, if anyone actually knows a completely 100% objective truth and can prove it, I'd be happy to see it posted here. ~DYou disappoint me, Husar. :brood:

Dr. Banquo and I went to so much trouble on your behalf. We opened a window on life for you, we let in fresh air to rid you of your deadening routines and mediocre tastes. We motivated you to get out and about and to finally make that decisive 'leap to the woman' as Freud called it.

Do you recall what we agreed? No more two-hour videos on the production of synthetic diapers. No more matchstick castle tournaments, no more senseless bickering with your Teddybear.

Now look at you. What you have just done is far, far worse than starting a discussion about religion. No, you had to get one up! You had to ask for proof of the existence of God on an Internet forum!!

How useless is that? Hm?

Word fail me at present. I will consult my colleague Banquo forthwith. Rest assured that you have not heard the last from us. :stare:

[Samurai Waki]

Time doesn't exist... thats a fair enough answer. I think in the scale of the universe, time has no factor or weight. We measure the span of existence by time, but its easier for man to contemplate time than it is to contemplate infinity. Even if the Big Bang is true of our Universe, then wouldn't it be true of many others before it and after it? I have a hard time believing that if you go to far you just hit a brick wall... furthermore is it valid contemplating all that is under the sea and over skies above us? Does this change the fact that we exist? And if there is a god to one universe, wouldn't there be many other gods to the others?

Thinking of God or the Universe is Pandora's Box. One question cannot be answered, instead you are given many more questions without an answer.

[Quirinus]

The existence of God cannot be proven by human volition (it could be answered in the affirmative if God did exist and personally chose to prove it). The non-existence of God cannot be proven either, as the idea of God makes no specific predictions that can be shown to be false. Specific characterizations of God can be attacked as logically inconsistent (for instance, if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, how can God and evil coexist?) and one might use the issue of weight of evidence combined with Ockham's razor to argue against the existence of God, but actually proving Him not to exist is beyond human power.
But then again, it's also impossible (or very close to impossible) to disprove the existence of a teapot the size of a house between the orbits of Earth and Mars.


Atheism, by definition, is the theory or belief that God does not exist. No strong or weak flavour pertains to the position.

[....]

In other words, atheists take as strong a position as theists, and therefore stand questioning on their evidence to the same degree.
Returning again to Russell's Teapot, why should I have to disprove that said teapot doesn't exist? Like someone else mentioned, there's a difference between "I believe God doesn't exist" and I don't believe God exists".


Most debates where this subject is argued, the atheist makes blanket statements on what the theists supposedly believes and why they are wrong usually referring to either Santa Claus or the Tooth fairy without stating why they think atheims is the right position.

This is easily shot down by the theist as straw men and points to the fact that no affirmative position have been forwarded. A debate judge will award points to the theist and none for the atheist.
And this is obviously not a blanket statement. No. :yes:


Given that every culture has independantly arrived at a belief in a higher being the Atheists are laggin behind.
I don't know...... many (all?) cultures had also arrived (independently?) at a belief that the earth was flat and that the stars and planets were stuck in domes over the earth. I'm not equating the God hypothesis to flat-earth hypothesis, just pointing out the fallacy here that "Belief By Many People = Truth".


My dad prides himself on logic, and that probably influenced me at first. When I was really young (ie 5 or 6), I would have said I was at 7 on that scale. I didn't believe in god because it seemed silly. Then I would have moved to a 6, accepting that it is possible but extremely unlikely God exists, probably the typical 'logical' approach.
Pretty much me, except that I'm still on number six these days.


Claiming that creationism and/or intelligent design is science does not make it science though and the link you provided explains why it cannot be considered science. Creationism hardly entered the realm of a scientific hypothesis.

[....]

In other words the followers of intelligent design really would love to have the term science attached to their beliefs, but the only way they can do that is to fundamentally change what science is and add supernatural elements to it.
QFT. Like UFOs, Kirlian auras and homoepathy, intelligent design is strictly pseudoscience.

[Viking]

But then again, it's also impossible (or very close to impossible) to disprove the existence of a teapot the size of a house between the orbits of Earth and Mars.

I'd say it's very very possible. Stuff like that is what LINEAR , Spacewatch & co. are doing. :juggle2:

A real comparison would be claiming the existence of something paranormal that cannot be observed, but that you are convinced is able to interfere with reality. That's where my super-God enters the stage. I believe in super-God, the creator of God and the supernatural sphere in which he exist. Inside this sphere again, lies the universe in which we live. Super-God is also known under the name the Flying Spaghetti Monster. ~;)

[Quirinus]

Ah, well, it was impossible when it was first coined. :laugh4: When's that, like, fifty years ago?


Super-God is also known under the name the Flying Spaghetti Monster. ~;)
Amen, fellow Pastafarian! :clown:

[Husar]

'woman' as Freud called it.
What is that? What was Freud talking about? I'm curious now.

[Sigurd]

I believe in super-God, the creator of God and the supernatural sphere in which he exist.

So we'll put you down as 1 or 2 on Dawkins' spectrum?

[Viking]

So we'll put you down as 1 or 2 on Dawkins' spectrum?

:inquisitive:

[Andres]

Time doesn't exist...

Tell that to impatient clients :sweatdrop:

[Craterus]

Tsk tsk, super-God that created God (and the other gods) can do even more than that. He exist in an even higher dimension that God (and the other gods) is not able to imagine. :shifty:

So, our all-knowing God is not actually all-knowing in that he knows nothing of his own creation. Hmm, can he even be classed as a God anymore? I think omniscience is pretty important in attaining 'God' status.

And you're also contradicting the Bible, the word of...er...'God'. Tut tut, I hope you like brimstone. Because the good God that we have is surprisingly unforgiving. Or so I'm told...

[Andres]

Because the good God that we have is surprisingly unforgiving. Or so I'm told...

Why would God be "good" ?

Why would he she it even care for man made concepts like "good" and "evil"?

[Lt Nevermind]

Why would God be "good" ?

Why would he she it even care for man made concepts like "good" and "evil"?

Just a little reminder of the christian source of history.

Genesis

1 First God made heaven & earth 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good;...

I guess one might argue that god would in fact have created the concepts "good" and "evil" if god saw something to be good (whether or not it's told by a man.)

[Viking]

So, our all-knowing God is not actually all-knowing in that he knows nothing of his own creation. Hmm, can he even be classed as a God anymore? I think omniscience is pretty important in attaining 'God' status.

And you're also contradicting the Bible, the word of...er...'God'. Tut tut, I hope you like brimstone. Because the good God that we have is surprisingly unforgiving. Or so I'm told...

I don't hope I stood out as a super-God believer, because I am his creator. ~:wave: (that makes me super^2-god does it not?

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that omnipotence is such a relative thing anyway; I mean if the gods are so omnipotent that they can create a stone so heavy that not even they themselves can lift it, then I don't see any problem with a higher God being capable of something more, greater, something way beyond our understanding (doesn't this argumentations sound familiar?), and that probably there is an endless amount of dimensions above the dimension of this super-god also; after all, how much can us poor humans comprehend? :wall:


And, again, I do not argue for the existence of any gods or similar; just pointing out how much absurd one can state and justify by 'it's beyond human understanding' and 'how can you know it is otherwise?'.

[Whacker]

Oh boy, I do love these threads!


Just a little reminder of the christian source of history.

Genesis

1 First God made heaven & earth 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good;...

I guess one might argue that god would in fact have created the concepts "good" and "evil" if god saw something to be good (whether or not it's told by a man.)

No no, this simply means that the christian god was tripping balls whilst performing the aforementioned creative act(s).

Someone also mentioned "Intelligent Design". ID is not science, it's dogma attempting to present itself as a legitimate science.

Others have also mentioned the impossibility of this discussion, which I agree with. HOWEVER, I disagree that our views are "extremely limited". It is simply amazing to see how much the human mind has come up with and is able to comprehend today in terms of ourselves and our universe.

Building on that, I do find some irony in a few aspects of this discussion. First, the more and more we as humans come to understand nature, the less room there is for what I'll catchall term as "mysticism", aka religion and dogma and such. Thus there is less and less room for religious types to explain themselves into what their various dogmas and religions texts really mean or were refering too... seeing how something written millenia ago for barely-post-neolithic age people living in tents doesn't always transfer well into modern times. Second, I find it amusing when people constantly harp on "there is room for science and religion to coexist". A noble idea, but in reality it never works, I won't elaborate on why, that's another thread. Lastly, building on my first point, as I perceive less and less of a need for "religion" as our working knowledge grows, I do see a need for some kind of mechanism for providing a baseline of morality. There are many of us who are living proof that one doesn't need "god" or some type of dogma to become an upright and moral person. How we go about this I'm not entirely sure, but in my view religion has outlived it's usefulness. /shrug

For the record, I am an ex-christian atheist-leaning agnostic. I don't know if there is a god or god(s), nor do I give a hoot, but I'm leaning towards there not being any such thing. Furthermore, I don't need religion to lead a good and meaningful life.

:balloon2:

[Lt Nevermind]

For the record, I am an ex-christian atheist-leaning agnostic. I don't know if there is a god or god(s), nor do I give a hoot, but I'm leaning towards there not being any such thing. Furthermore, I don't need religion to lead a good and meaningful life.


For the record, I would consider myself an atheist myself, and otherwise pretty much agree with everything you pointed out. I apologize if I gave a wrong impression in the previous post, I was merely referring to the previous statement/question which appears to be rather hastily done. :balloon2:

[Husar]

So, our all-knowing God is not actually all-knowing in that he knows nothing of his own creation. Hmm, can he even be classed as a God anymore? I think omniscience is pretty important in attaining 'God' status.

And you're also contradicting the Bible, the word of...er...'God'. Tut tut, I hope you like brimstone. Because the good God that we have is surprisingly unforgiving. Or so I'm told...
That's wrong if you think about our universe and our god as a subsystem of a greater system and consider that our god would logically give us only information that concerns us. The bible and his omniscience would be perfectly fine and true in this subsystem while all the stuff about our god having a god himself would not be of any importance for us as we'd be judged by our god and not his god, it could be a tier system similar to how we humans organize countries, there's no need to know how far away from the sidewalk your house has to be in the Provence when you want to build your house somewhere in Poland, afaik that's handled by the local authorities and not the EU. In the same way we are judged by our god and not super-god so everything is fine in our subsystem of the multiverse. :dizzy2:

[Craterus]

If the God isn't aware of the SuperGod, he's not omniscient. That's a direct contradiction of the HOLY SCRIPTURES!!!

So, to clarify, I have no idea what you're talking about.

[InsaneApache]

OK now, settle down. Honestly. Now then, what if I asked this question.

Do Gods exist?

How would the normal debate deviate?

[ajaxfetish]

But then again, it's also impossible (or very close to impossible) to disprove the existence of a teapot the size of a house between the orbits of Earth and Mars.

...

Returning again to Russell's Teapot, why should I have to disprove that said teapot doesn't exist? Like someone else mentioned, there's a difference between "I believe God doesn't exist" and I don't believe God exists".
You're absolutely right. I also happen not to care whether there is a teapot the size of a house between Earth and Mars. And if any person chooses not to care whether God exists, I'm perfectly happy with that as well. Many things are both unprovable and undisprovable. That is why religion is a matter of faith, not of science, and any attempt to marry the two, such as 'Intelligent Design,' is in my opinion doomed to ignominious failure. Also, long live our Noodly Master.

Ajax

[Navaros]

Contrary to many posts in this thread, Intelligent Design is every bit as much of science as the big bang theory and/or the theory of evolution is, probably even moreso.

Also, contrary to many posts in this thread that imply otherwise, attaching the word "scientific" to the word "theory" doesn't mean much, and doesn't give the theory any more validity or worth above another theory. Especially since "scientific theories" like the big bang theory or the theory of evolution require every bit as much, if not more, faith-based speculation as any "non-scientific" theory would.

[ajaxfetish]

Contrary to many posts in this thread, Intelligent Design is every bit as much of science as the big bang theory and/or the theory of evolution is, probably even moreso.
Sure, if you use a definition of science different from that which everyone else uses.

Ajax

[Navaros]

Sure, if you use a definition of science different from that which everyone else uses.


Mainstream scientists discreetly alter their own definition of what science is whenever it happens to suit their agenda. Abandoning principles of the scientific method required to qualify a theory as scientific in the case of the big bang and evolution, and filling in the blanks where the scientific method cannot be applied with faith-based speculation. Ie: Neither of those theories is observable, testable, or repeatable and therefore do not qualify as "scientific" under science's own standards for everything else.

Point being, mainstream scientists' definition of "science" is skewed and does not hold up to scrutiny. If there is a fair definition of what "science" is, it definitely doesn't come from mainstream scientists.

[ajaxfetish]

I'll agree with you that the classic interpretation of science is too narrow to be of use in some investigation. I'll agree with you that natural selection and the big bang theory, not to mention many geological theories and so forth, are theories of processes that are not directly observable or repeatable. I am perfectly willing to reserve more doubt for such theories and more readily replace them when a better explanation comes along.

But one of the fundamental ideas of scientific inquiry is working from evidence to conclusions, not the other way around (however often individual scientists may struggle with the idea, especially in a Kuhnian view of science). In this way, theories such as natural selection or the big bang, however flawed they may be, are essentially different from 'Intelligent Design,' and have a claim on scientific legitimacy which 'Intelligent Design' will never have, since it came at the whole issue bass-ackwards.

Ajax

[Ronin]

Contrary to many posts in this thread, Intelligent Design is every bit as much of science as the big bang theory and/or the theory of evolution is, probably even moreso.


Intelligent Design starts out from a faith based point of view and then tries to twist the facts until they fit into that model, there&#180;s nothing scientific about it. In fact it&#180;s the complete opposite.


Mainstream scientists discreetly alter their own definition of what science is whenever it happens to suit their agenda. Abandoning principles of the scientific method required to qualify a theory as scientific in the case of the big bang and evolution, and filling in the blanks where the scientific method cannot be applied with faith-based speculation. Ie: Neither of those theories is observable, testable, or repeatable and therefore do not qualify as "scientific" under science's own standards for everything else.


Evolution is reproducible and observable on a micro level....of course no scientist has millions of years available in order to reproduce it on it&#180;s natural scale, but the principle of it&#180;s functioning stands, the fact that you reject this because of your dogmatic religious views doesn&#180;t make it any less true.

On the big bang thing I&#180;ll have to agree with you, something like that doesn&#180;t match the scientific model 100%, it is a conjecture derived from observable facts but it cannot be reproduced, so maybe a new name should be used for this one instead of 'theory', but then again maybe the experiment in Switzerland can push it straight into the 'theory' level.
But then again it&#180;s still leaps and bounds ahead of
'it happened this way because this old book written by nobody knows who said so' :book:

[Adrian II]

Evolution is reproducible and observable on a micro level.You are thinking fruit flies.

Of course a large part of evolution theory is based on deduction, not on experiment.

I always use the comparison with Middle Age man. We know people were smaller in the Middle Ages because we can measure their (radiocardon-dated) bones and utensils, we observe that their buildings have lower doors and windows than ours, their clothes were smaller, etcetera.

Research into evolution proceeds on the same principles, which are also the principles of all modern science. This is why the promotion of Intelligent Design and Creationism, which are at odds with these principles, represents an attack on science as a whole, from mathematics or particle physics to applied science and engineering.

To put it in a nutshell: if the whole world were to seriously convert to ID or Creationism, mankind would run out of food in five days.

[Ronin]

You are thinking fruit flies.

Of course a large part of evolution theory is based on deduction, not on experiment.

I always use the comparison with Middle Age man. We know people were smaller in the Middle Ages because we can measure their (radiocardon-dated) bones and utensils, we observe that their buildings have lower doors and windows than ours, their clothes were smaller, etcetera.

Research into evolution proceeds on the same principles, which are also the principles of all modern science. This is why the promotion of Intelligent Design and Creationism, which are at odds with these principles, represents an attack on science as a whole, from mathematics or particle physics to applied science and engineering.

To put it in a nutshell: if the whole world were to seriously convert to ID or Creationism, mankind would run out of food in five days.

I am thinking much larger than that....dogs for example.

we already have breeds of dogs that are unable to reproduce with one another naturally without human interference.
This is normally due to extreme size differences, but this anatomic incompatibility makes them unable to reproduce even if their sperm and eggs are still compatible with one another.

Is that not the beginning of a split in the dog race?...we still call them all dogs, but if you have one entire subset of the population that is unable to reproduce with another entire subset of the population due to anatomic incompatibility is it still just one animal race?

[macsen rufus]

Hmmm, dogs is IMHO a bad example -- this is selective breeding. Anatomical incompatibilities don't make them different species, they are still genetically compatible. Now, without human intervention, these physically incompatible types would not interbreed, and over time mutations will occur, natural selection (which is THE important aspect of evolution, btw) will occur and eventually the sub-types will speciate - ie become genetically incompatible species.

For real "evolution in action" I'd suggest a smaller scale even than the fruit flies, and ask this question:
if evolution is NOT happening, why can we no longer use the same antibiotics we used thirty or more years ago?

:2cents:

[Viking]

For real "evolution in action" I'd suggest a smaller scale even than the fruit flies, and ask this question:
if evolution is NOT happening, why can we no longer use the same antibiotics we used thirty or more years ago?

:2cents:

Because the viruses are intelligently designed, such that we can never beat them. :beam:

[Husar]

Antibiotics only target bacteria, not viruses.

[Viking]

Er, that's of course what I meant. :shame:

[Quirinus]

Mainstream scientists discreetly alter their own definition of what science is whenever it happens to suit their agenda. Abandoning principles of the scientific method required to qualify a theory as scientific in the case of the big bang and evolution, and filling in the blanks where the scientific method cannot be applied with faith-based speculation. Ie: Neither of those theories is observable, testable, or repeatable and therefore do not qualify as "scientific" under science's own standards for everything else.

Point being, mainstream scientists' definition of "science" is skewed and does not hold up to scrutiny. If there is a fair definition of what "science" is, it definitely doesn't come from mainstream scientists.
I can't speak for the Big Bang because I don't know much about it, but using evolution as an example betrays how little you understand the theiry of evolution. What people who quote evolution as 'not having proof' or 'just a theory' don't seem to get (or choose to ignore) is that evolution is not formed out of a single observation like the fossil record or beaks of different birds, but from strands of data and observation from different branches of science. For example, a study of the remains of a Polynesian litter site reveals shells of molluscs that shrink the closer one gets to the present, as a result of preferential harvesting of large individuals. This is just one of many examples I could quote.

And, true, sciences like quantum physics does employ a lot of speculation and assumption, but the difference from pseudo-science/non-science is that while the theories might be arcane, counter-intuitive and/or seemingly ridiculous, they actually do predict phenomenon with some accuracy.

/rant


What is your understanding of "mainstream scientists' definition of science", and what are your examples of widely accepted scientific theories that do not qualify? Indulge me.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I always use the comparison with Middle Age man. We know people were smaller in the Middle Ages because we can measure their (radiocardon-dated) bones and utensils, we observe that their buildings have lower doors and windows than ours, their clothes were smaller, etcetera.

This can also be attributed to, say, better nutrition in modern times.

[Adrian II]

This can also be attributed to, say, better nutrition in modern times.Lol! Of course it can.

My point was about the principles underpinning scientific research into the natural past.

The deductive principles used to establish the average height of Middle Age man, to reconstruct the rise and fall of species in natural history, to build a bridge, check the safety of cars, grow genetically improved corn or fly to the moon are basically the same. They underpin all modern science; that is why an attack on evolutionary theory is by consequence an attack on modern science as such, and on all its achievements.

[Craterus]

Hey Navaros, do you believe humans were around at the same time as dinosaurs?

[Ronin]

Hey Navaros, do you believe humans were around at the same time as dinosaurs?

there were never any dinosaurs.....god placed those fossils here on earth to test our faith :laugh4:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hey Navaros, do you believe humans were around at the same time as dinosaurs?

Yes they were, alongside dragons.

[Adrian II]

Hey Navaros, do you believe humans were around at the same time as dinosaurs?Creationists never answer such questions because, in all seriousness, they can't.

They never address the methodological issue either, I mean the fact that the same scientific principles and methods that underpin evolution theory also underpin all other scientific and technological endeavour. Saying that evolutionary theory doesn't stand up to the known facts is like standing beside Golden Gate bridge and saying that it doesn't exist.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Creationists never answer such questions because, in all seriousness, they can't.

They never address the methodological issue either, I mean the fact that the same scientific principles and methods that underpin evolution theory also underpin all other scientific and technological endeavour. Saying that evolutionary theory doesn't stand up to the known facts is like standing beside Golden Gate bridge and saying that it doesn't exist.

Woah woah woah. Adrian, you know as well as I do that there is a difference between "young earth creationists" and "creationists" in general. Scientists can't answer the ultimate question either. Nobody is arguing that things don't change for one reason or another.

"ID" and creationism are also distinct, zealot.

After all that is said - I don't believe that unscientific things should be involved in science classes - that includes anything non-scientific prior to "big bang". Leave the question open - let people know about options in guessing (secular and religious). Only try to answer if you have some scientific guess.

[Mikeus Caesar]

With regards to the opening question, i'm not entirely decided on that (i'm leaning towards yes, but my logical side is questing how he exists), but this doesn't necessarily mean i follow a religion. Ultimately i'll worship him how i feel, hence i'm an atheist, regardless of whether or not i believe in God.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Creationists never answer such questions because, in all seriousness, they can't.

They never address the methodological issue either, I mean the fact that the same scientific principles and methods that underpin evolution theory also underpin all other scientific and technological endeavour. Saying that evolutionary theory doesn't stand up to the known facts is like standing beside Golden Gate bridge and saying that it doesn't exist.

I hope I am not flamed by you scientists for talking crap, but...

Someone I know, a very committed Christian, has been investigating something to do with dinosaur fossils. Apparently, scientists have discovered red blood cells (IIRC) which should have decayed a long time before now if dinosaurs died out 65b years ago. Also he mentioned dragons.

Not sure I remembered that right but anyway...

[Quirinus]

After all that is said - I don't believe that unscientific things should be involved in science classes - that includes anything non-scientific prior to "big bang". Leave the question open - let people know about options in guessing (secular and religious). Only try to answer if you have some scientific guess.
Wait, are 'things prior to the Big Bang' being taught in schools? I was under the impression that even the very mention of the Big Bang in science textbooks were being disputed.

[Adrian II]

"ID" and creationism are also distinct, zealot.ID is a variety of creationism. It has itself been created by Christians in the U.S. in order to circumvent the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which prohibits the teaching of religious concepts in public schools. That's all there is to it.

We're onto you, buddy. All we need to know to wrap this thing up is: who's doing it to whom.
https://img261.imageshack.us/img261/7206/hack1ys8.gif (https://imageshack.us)

[Ironside]

I hope I am not flamed by you scientists for talking crap, but...

Someone I know, a very committed Christian, has been investigating something to do with dinosaur fossils. Apparently, scientists have discovered red blood cells (IIRC) which should have decayed a long time before now if dinosaurs died out 65b years ago. Also he mentioned dragons.

Not sure I remembered that right but anyway...

Those bloodcells (well it was more tissue, a bone marrow iirc) was petrified and then depetrified in a science lab and while supricingly intact, it's quite a difference of the durability between fossilised stuff and unfossilised stuff.

Although I haven't seen about dragons on any of those creationist links that showed up during the last debates.


More on topic, I always found the question of why you should worship the Creator more interesting than if he exist or not.
Taking God for example I fail to see the benefits in this life (He seem rather random on that issue), and he also have a rather cruel streek according to human standards and personally I rather go for a minimun of human standards rather than giving leevay to entities beyond me, when determining the entity's worthiness for personal worship. So he will not get my vote.

This also requires him to be a kind of entity you can pray to (compare God to Brahman for example) and that he actually also listens to the prayers in the first place.

[ajaxfetish]

Someone I know, a very committed Christian, has been investigating something to do with dinosaur fossils. Apparently, scientists have discovered red blood cells (IIRC) which should have decayed a long time before now if dinosaurs died out 65b years ago. Also he mentioned dragons.

Not sure whether you'll find many scientists who think the dinosaurs died out 65 billion years ago. Probably won't find any who think the Earth existed yet then, either.

Ajax

[Viking]

Not sure whether you'll find many scientists who think the dinosaurs died out 65 billion years ago. Probably won't find any who think the Earth existed yet then, either.

Ajax

Nice catch. :laugh4:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Not sure whether you'll find many scientists who think the dinosaurs died out 65 billion years ago. Probably won't find any who think the Earth existed yet then, either.

Ajax

:embarassed:

As for the question over why God should want to be worshiped, and if he's really then worth worshiping, I used to wonder at that. That's what I used to tell my mum when she was dragging me to church, I'd wonder why God cared if I went or not.

I don't think though that that's really the idea behind prayer etc. When I pray I definetely don't just sit and go "God is great, God in wonderful", etc etc.

I suppose someone else could explain it better, I have a complete lack of knowledge regarding the bible. There isn't even one in my house (being my parents house). I think if I'd got one I'd never hear the end of it, they'd probably think I was cracking up.:shame:

[Adrian II]

I suppose someone else could explain it better, I have a complete lack of knowledge regarding the bible. There isn't even one in my house (being my parents house). I think if I'd got one I'd never hear the end of it, they'd probably think I was cracking up.:shame:Never, ever let someone hold you back from your genuine beliefs or interests. Buy a Bible from your pocket money, get one for your Birthday, take it out at the Library, whatever. But do it. It's a great read, and it's an even greater feeling to be able to make up your own mind about it. :yes:

[Rhyfelwyr]

You are right Adrian, I should stop being such a pussy.:shame:

I suppose this is what happens when I get Mr.Logic engineering degree dad, and only-went-to-church-to-look-respectable mum.

I reckon borrowing one from my Uni library wouldn't be too obvious...

[Craterus]

:embarassed:

As for the question over why God should want to be worshiped, and if he's really then worth worshiping, I used to wonder at that. That's what I used to tell my mum when she was dragging me to church, I'd wonder why God cared if I went or not.

I don't think though that that's really the idea behind prayer etc. When I pray I definetely don't just sit and go "God is great, God in wonderful", etc etc.

I suppose someone else could explain it better, I have a complete lack of knowledge regarding the bible. There isn't even one in my house (being my parents house). I think if I'd got one I'd never hear the end of it, they'd probably think I was cracking up.:shame:

Heh, that's another one. The obligatory church every Sunday thing. It's practically the same service every week across the country (my experience only goes as far as Anglican and a few Catholic services). If I had to hear that from millions of people every Sunday morning, I don't know what I'd do. A giant flood or something.

Of course, a good number of today's Christians don't attend church regularly. Somehow, we always find ways of sidestepping bits of the faith we don't like...

[Rhyfelwyr]

The value of church services depends a lot on the minister (or equivalent). Some just seem to go through the motions, although its nice when you get a more charismatic one that actually tries to explain what he is talking about and put it into an understandable context.

My family stopped going to church years ago. When I used to go with them, it was mostly Church of Scotland services. Pretty Calvinist in its outlook. Although I've also been to a few Evangelical services in the past.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Never, ever let someone hold you back from your genuine beliefs or interests. Buy a Bible from your pocket money, get one for your Birthday, take it out at the Library, whatever. But do it. It's a great read, and it's an even greater feeling to be able to make up your own mind about it. :yes:

Yup, I only actually bought one about four months ago. It was only £17 from Waterstones, which is pretty good for such a big book.:laugh4:

I would recommend the New Revised Standard Version or the New International Version as ok-ish translations.

[Adrian II]

Yup, I only actually bought one about four months ago. It was only £17 from Waterstones, which is pretty good for such a big book.:laugh4:

I would recommend the New Revised Standard Version or the New International Version as ok-ish translations.Good show.

I would even make a bet with Caledonian Rhyfelwyr. I'll bet ya that if you get your copy of the Bible and read it, if you ignore the funny looks and comments and persist, you will discover that some of the things they have told you about the Bible are completely wrong. And if you gently confront them with their mistakes and they begin to see that you are serious about your interest, you will witness that magic moment when one of them quasi in passing, almost surrepticiously, will ask to borrow your Bible so they can see for themselves...

[Craterus]

Why charge for a Bible? Who gets the money? Surely it should be free to discover God?

[Quirinus]

The people who print the Bibles, methinks. Paper and ink don't come free, even if it is in the service of God. I recall some guys handing out pocket New Testaments when I was in seventh-grade (equivalent), but they must have been sponsored by some church.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Does anybody here still have an old "family Bible"?

I have (I think) three and a half. One in Russian (which I can't read), one in German, one in English, and the New Testament alone in English. I don't know how I got so many, or why. One or two of the above would've been fine.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The people who print the Bibles, methinks. Paper and ink don't come free, even if it is in the service of God. I recall some guys handing out pocket New Testaments when I was in seventh-grade (equivalent), but they must have been sponsored by some church.

There's also all the guys doing the translation, when I consider that mine is hardback, with a faux leather cover and is very inclusive I consider it a pretty good deal.

Adrian, I'm afraid sometimes I make Evangelical Christians cry.:shame: There can be too much learning too quickly to dump on one person.

[Adrian II]

Adrian, I'm afraid sometimes I make Evangelical Christians cry.:shame: There can be too much learning too quickly to dump on one person.Oh those poor children of the night, be gentle with them. Read them a chapter every now and then and let it sink in, but do not overwhelm them with disturbing passages on incest, genocide or split hoofs, it gives them nightmares.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I demonstrated the impossibility of Biblical infallibility using the Gospels.

It's like a knife through butter, though unlike Dawkins I don't want to destroy their faith.

[Adrian II]

I demonstrated the impossibility of Biblical infallibility using the Gospels.Ah, the cruelty of youth... :sweatdrop:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yeah I remember years ago a guy gave out mini-bibles when I was at school, not long after Primary IIRC. Most people just through them about at break or stabbed them with compasses. I didn't do that, but I must confess I didn't read it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That would be the Gideons International New Testament and Psalms, it's half of the NIV translation but you'll notice it lack the difficult OT.

Adiran, I didn't mean to be nasty. It's not like I was shouting and screaming, I just overloaded the poor thing.

[Adrian II]

It's not like I was shouting and screaming, I just overloaded the poor thing.Sure, sure.

And of course you, um, comforted her afterwards? https://img245.imageshack.us/img245/4500/hack1rc7.gif (https://imageshack.us)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

um, she's an Evangelical Christian Adrian.

I figured it was better coming from me than a diciple of the High Priest Anti-Theism.

[Adrian II]

um, she's an Evangelical Christian Adrian.

I figured it was better coming from me than a diciple of the High Priest Anti-Theism.So this, um, this act of mercy - did it extend to, um, to knowledge in the biblical sense?
https://img245.imageshack.us/img245/4500/hack1rc7.gif

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Go read a dirty book.

[Sigurd]

Derailing are we?

[Navaros]

But one of the fundamental ideas of scientific inquiry is working from evidence to conclusions, not the other way around (however often individual scientists may struggle with the idea, especially in a Kuhnian view of science). In this way, theories such as natural selection or the big bang, however flawed they may be, are essentially different from 'Intelligent Design,' and have a claim on scientific legitimacy which 'Intelligent Design' will never have, since it came at the whole issue bass-ackwards.



Mainstream "science"-based viewpoints about the big bang and evolution work first and foremost off the assumption that there is zero possibility that there is a God or Intelligent Being who designed the world in the way described in the Bible. There is no difference at all about how mainstream scientists take a biased position right off the bat, and thus proceed to filter all their interpretations of the 'evidences' they find through that biased viewpoint. Thus possibly skewing the results of what the evidences actually show due to bad, biased mis-interpretation caused by their prejudicial viewpoint that must be adhered to no matter what, at any cost.

Regardless of what evidences turn up, they will always be interpreted by mainstream scientists in such a way that conforms to their 'The Bible is wrong for sure', "scientific" viewpoint.

Could a mainstream scientist ever interpret evidence that shows an Act of God, as being an Act of God, even if that is the correct interpretation (ie: evidences of the great Flood as described in the Bible)? Of course not, he'd be laughed at and lose his reputation among mainstream scientists for even thinking that. Just goes to show that mainstream scientists start with their pre-conceived conclusions too, and then interpret all evidences they find in a way that will support their pre-conceived conclusions. There may be some variance about this regarding trivial minutiae that gets changed over time, but there is no variance reading the core prejudgements always being there that "The big bang happened" and "Evolution happened and man surely must have evolved from lower organisms and then apes".

It's like the posters in this thread said: "anything supernatural is not science". That idea reeks of bias and is very poignant evidence of how science is skewed to interpret all evidences to match it's pre-conceived conclusions. Sometimes supernatural explanation is the only thing that fits to properly explain some scientific evidences that have been discovered. But mainstream scientists will never even consider that possibility due to their biases. Instead they will make up cockamamy theories to make the evidences fit their pre-conceived conclusions.:idea2:

[Quirinus]

Mainstream "science"-based viewpoints about the big bang and evolution work first and foremost off the assumption that there is zero possibility that there is a God or Intelligent Being who designed the world in the way described in the Bible. There is no difference at all about how mainstream scientists take a biased position right off the bat, and thus proceed to filter all their interpretations of the 'evidences' they find through that biased viewpoint. Thus possibly skewing the results of what the evidences actually show due to bad, biased mis-interpretation caused by their prejudicial viewpoint that must be adhered to no matter what, at any cost.
And there, in my opinion, you are confusing cause and effect. Did scientists examine the facts and therefore conclude that Biblical creation is unsatisfactory, or did they start by deciding that creationism is absolutely incorrect and then started to build their own theories out of fanciful imagination?

Similarly, did you decide that scientists do not adhere to the scientific method because their findings do not fit your worldview, or did you examine the facts and found them truly biased?


Regardless of what evidences turn up, they will always be interpreted by mainstream scientists in such a way that conforms to their 'The Bible is wrong for sure', "scientific" viewpoint.
Regardless of what evidences turn up, they will always be interpreted by fundamentalist Christian 'scholars' in such a way that conforms to their 'The Bible is right for sure', "self-evident" viewpoint.


Could a mainstream scientist ever interpret evidence that shows an Act of God, as being an Act of God, even if that is the correct interpretation (ie: evidences of the great Flood as described in the Bible)? Of course not, he'd be laughed at and lose his reputation among mainstream scientists for even thinking that. Just goes to show that mainstream scientists start with their pre-conceived conclusions too, and then interpret all evidences they find in a way that will support their pre-conceived conclusions.
Okay, so let's say that Biblical floods happened, like described in the Bible. Hey, floods happen all the time. Please explain to this biased person how it neccesarily has to be attributed to an Act of God.


There may be some variance about this regarding trivial minutiae that gets changed over time, but there is no variance reading the core prejudgements always being there that "The big bang happened" and "Evolution happened and man surely must have evolved from lower organisms and then apes".
I again have to question if you've read any sort of scientific literature on evolution, of if your knowledge of it is based solely off Sunday-school booklets.

Since you think "mainstream science" so flawed, please share your alternative theories and the accompanying evidence/reasoning, such as your "evidences of the great Flood as described in the Bible".


It's like the posters in this thread said: "anything supernatural is not science". That idea reeks of bias and is very poignant evidence of how science is skewed to interpret all evidences to match it's pre-conceived conclusions. Sometimes supernatural explanation is the only thing that fits to properly explain some scientific evidences that have been discovered. But mainstream scientists will never even consider that possibility due to their biases. Instead they will make up cockamamy theories to make the evidences fit their pre-conceived conclusions.:idea2:
Oh, come off it. My trusty Oxford dictionary informs me that supernatural is defined as: attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. I'd like to direct your attentions especially to the highlighted part, if you please.

But then again, we all know that the Oxford dictionary is hopelessly biased. :yes:


I posed a question at the end of my last post:

What is your understanding of "mainstream scientists' definition of science", and what are your examples of widely accepted scientific theories that do not qualify? Indulge me.
:2thumbsup: Please do.

[Ironside]

Mainstream "science"-based viewpoints about the big bang and evolution work first and foremost off the assumption that there is zero possibility that there is a God or Intelligent Being who designed the world in the way described in the Bible.

You are aware that science really loves predictability? For example, the theories about the big bang predicted the background radiation decades before someone actually found it (and they weren't searching for it).

So if God created the world, he made it in a way that makes it predictable and that it's exactly what science is about.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Good show.

I would even make a bet with Caledonian Rhyfelwyr. I'll bet ya that if you get your copy of the Bible and read it, if you ignore the funny looks and comments and persist, you will discover that some of the things they have told you about the Bible are completely wrong. And if you gently confront them with their mistakes and they begin to see that you are serious about your interest, you will witness that magic moment when one of them quasi in passing, almost surrepticiously, will ask to borrow your Bible so they can see for themselves...

I have found, more and more, that what people have taught me about the bible that I thought were just wrong - were not.

by "Bible" I mean the Old and New Testament and all of the accepted Apocrypha.

Before you ask me for some examples, could you give me some?

[Adrian II]

I have found, more and more, that what people have taught me about the bible that I thought were just wrong - were not.

by "Bible" I mean the Old and New Testament and all of the accepted Apocrypha.

Before you ask me for some examples, could you give me some?Before you launch yourself again into spheres of acrimony and indignation where no man has gone before, could you just read what the discussion was about?

Caledonian Rhyfelwyr said his parents aren't interested in the Bible and would give him funny looks if he acquired one. I encouraged him to get one, and I suggested that if he persisted he might confront his parents on mistaken notions and make them aware that maybe their ideas were a little funny.

And if Caledonian Rhyfelwyr finds that everything he was told about the Bible was right after all, then at least he has made up his own mind about it. It's his call - that's all I was saying.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Before you launch yourself again into spheres of acrimony and indignation where no man has gone before, could you just read what the discussion was about?

Caledonian Rhyfelwyr said his parents aren't interested in the Bible and would give him funny looks if he acquired one. I encouraged him to get one, and I suggested that if he persisted he might confront his parents on mistaken notions and make them aware that maybe their ideas were a little funny.

And if Caledonian Rhyfelwyr finds that everything he was told about the Bible was right after all, then at least he has made up his own mind about it. It's his call - that's all I was saying.

Okay - I wasn't going to spew indignation. I don't spew indignation about the metaphysical.

[Rhyfelwyr]

On the issue of my personal mini-derailment which I have caused in this thread, I had a good look about the house today and actually managed to come across a bible. So I've started reading it, though I just found it earlier today so I only read a few pages. I'll mostly read it in bed, since I tend to stay up for hours after everyone else anyway.

It said it was a King James version, didn't even know there were different versions, but is is pretty much the same idea, right?

[ICantSpellDawg]

On the issue of my personal mini-derailment which I have caused in this thread, I had a good look about the house today and actually managed to come across a bible. So I've started reading it, though I just found it earlier today so I only read a few pages. I'll mostly read it in bed, since I tend to stay up for hours after everyone else anyway.

It said it was a King James version, didn't even know there were different versions, but is is pretty much the same idea, right?

Pretty much, but get a Catholic one - more apocrypha.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Pretty much, but get a Catholic one - more apocrypha.

I think you'll find there's less Apocrypha in a strictly Catholic Bible.

The King James isn't great really, it's okay to read to children.

[Kralizec]

Get an Orange Catholic bible, if you can find one.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think you'll find there's less Apocrypha in a strictly Catholic Bible.

The King James isn't great really, it's okay to read to children.

Whats the difference between other bibles? They still have the same Old/New Testaments don't they?

As for the Orange Catholic bible, sounds like a paradox.:inquisitive:

[Adrian II]

Whats the difference between other bibles? They still have the same Old/New Testaments don't they?

As for the Orange Catholic bible, sounds like a paradox.:inquisitive:Yo Caledonian. Got a moment to spare?

No sooner have you started reading a Bible, then other Christians try to dissuade you and recommend their Bible instead. Nice eh? Welcome to the miraculous world of God’s word, as seen through the eyes of His denominations.

Every major denomination has it’s canonical (recognized) books and passages and its apocryphal ('false' or unrecognized) books and passages. The history of the compilation of these canons is a study in itself. Suffice to say they were usually tailored to the demands of their makers.

And surprise, this still applies today.

Mind you, the real beef is not in the exclusion of whole books. It is in the surreptitious changing of passages within the canonical books over the years. That’s where you see the wee devil of manipulation rearing its ugly head.

I’ll do you a service. Since we are discussing abortion in the Backroom day and night, let me tackle that one through Exodus 21, the book that outlines Mosaic law in line with the ten commendments.

Here is what the original Jewish Exodus 21:22-25 says with regard to a woman’s accidental miscarriage caused by a fight:

22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Talmud (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Exodus21.html)


In other words: the fetus may have value, but not the same as a human being. Accordingly, Jewish law (Halacha) states that a fetus becomes a human person only when the head emerges from the womb. The Talmud has the expression ‘ubar yerech imo’ – ‘the fetus is as the thigh of its mother’ – meaning it is part and parcel of the mother’s body, not a separate life. This is why, to the exception of some Orthodox sects, Judaism does not oppose abortion.

Now, your King James Bible (1611) sticks closely to the original text when it says:


22: If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23: And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24: Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25: Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
King James Version (http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvExod.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=21&division=div1)


This passage has been left untouched for ages by Christian translators. In the first half of the twentieth century the Christian versions of Exodus were brought even closer in line with the original, for instance in the Revised Standard Bible (RSB, Old Testament, 1952) which is a comprehensive revision of the King James:


[22] When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
[23] If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,
[24] eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
[25] burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Revised Standard Bible (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=217012)


The New American Standard Bible (NASB) from 1963 has it thusly:


And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury, he shall surely be fined...


Etcetera, &cetera.


Now look at the New International Version Bible )NIV), published in 1978 by the New York Bible Society. This version was the result of a long process of deliberation in Evangelical circles starting in 1965, in the midst of heated debates about the sexual revolution, female emancipation and abortion rights. Low and behold, the text of Exodus 21:22-25 was wonderfully adapted to the anti-feminist viewpoint of the day:

22 If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.
23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
New International Version Bible (http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/index.php?q=Exodus+21%3A22-25&submit=Lookup+Verse&niv=yes)

In other words, suddenly both the woman and the fetus appear as human beings whose injury or death is payable by death. Hence abortion is murder, payable by ‘an eye for an eye’. Presto!

One by one other Bible publishers had to give in to the ideological demand of the Evangelicals and other Christians who opposed abortion as the pars pro toto of female emancipation (which is still is to the Christian right). Even the 1995 updated version of the NASB now has it that:


‘If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined.’
New American Standard Bible revised (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=21&version=49)


How convenient.

Meanwhile millions of gullible readers are being had. Majorly.

Mind you, it’s only ‘God’s word’ they’re messing with. The fact that they mess with womens’ rights is far worse.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hmm, in my NRSV it's miscarriage. Nuance is a funny thing, isn't it.

My advice is to get ahold of as many Bibles as possible really and compare, read up on how they were translated as well.

[ajaxfetish]

Mainstream "science"-based viewpoints about the big bang and evolution work first and foremost off the assumption that there is zero possibility that there is a God or Intelligent Being who designed the world in the way described in the Bible.
You may be unaware of this, but a vast many scientists are devoted theists. It is not antipathy toward the possibility of the supernatural which prevents them from interpreting natural events as such. It's that the supernatural doesn't fit into a method of investigation based on repeatable experiment, prediction, and induction. The hard evidence, as it were, for the existence of God is all man-made in the form of holy writ. While one may attempt to find evidence for what is written in the natural world, the natural world does not itself suggest that God created a flood (for instance). Evidence of a flood means a flood happened. Only with the addition of the biblical narrative (again, not a natural phenomenon), is there any reason to consider connecting such an event to a supernatural being.


It said it was a King James version, didn't even know there were different versions, but is is pretty much the same idea, right?
The King James is the classic English translation, as it became the authorized version of the Anglican Church fairly early on, and was the version first brought by the Puritans to America. It's from the 1600s and based largely off the Latin vulgate and earlier English translations, such as Tyndale's. Newer versions are based on older manuscripts in Greek and Hebrew which are assumed to be closer to the original (No 'original' copies of the bible are extant to our knowledge, though some manuscripts are very old).

If you want a more accurate translation, or one that uses more modern English, or one without quite so many odd euphemisms, there are other versions available, but I think the King James is particularly poetic in many of its phrasings, more beautiful to read than some versions, and it has been influential enough to give us many of the biblical idioms that have been absorbed by the language (eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, out of the mouths of babes, the apple of my eye, signs of the times, etc.). You can do worse than the KJV.

Ajax

[Sigurd]

:2thumbsup: Nice Andres...

I agree with your sentiment of evangelical christendom and your interpretations of the example scriptures.

You have extremists in every religion and as I have stated before, my subjective understanding of such, is lack of faith or even a misconseption of doctrines. They just didn't get the message.

Even the apostles of Christ had a hard time getting to terms with the gospel (if we should believe what is written).
Apparently it was only after the death and resurrection of Christ and 40 days of meetings behind closed doors with Christ as teacher, that they grasped the meaning of it all and could go out, repeat the miracles, preach this gospel of peace and organize the early church.

As soon as you get people into the religion that didn't quite understand the message, you get problems.
Just take the christening of Norway lead by Olav Trygvasson and Olav Haraldsson. They preached by the sword and a lot of people were killed (those who didn't accept white christ). And I would say that this didn't quite conform with the message.
You have this in every religion.

[HoreTore]

*coughs something about a 3-0 beating by westside pansies*

[Husar]

Now I have a question Adrian II, I had to check this in my very own personal bible which calls itself (yes it can talk :dizzy2: ) "Hoffnung für alle" or "Hope for everybody" from 1996 and it says "Fehlgeburt (http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&lang=de&searchLoc=0&cmpType=relaxed&sectHdr=on&spellToler=on&search=Fehlgeburt&relink=on)" but there's a little a) next to the word and when you look at the bottom it says: "oder: Frühgeburt (http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&lang=de&searchLoc=0&cmpType=relaxed&sectHdr=on&spellToler=on&search=Fr%FChgeburt&relink=on)".

Now I wonder whether I was one of the evil Christians™ or not? :sweatdrop:

[Sigurd]

*coughs something about a 3-0 beating by westside pansies*
RED HERRING!!!!
Completely irrelevant to the discussion we are having.
Crawl back to the extremist east and your White Christ and leave us Odin fearing people alone.
:beam:

[Adrian II]

Now I wonder whether I was one of the evil Christians™ or not? :sweatdrop:Dear Husar, no one is evil™, least of all your amicable self. But blind faith more often leads to evil than to good. So believe whatever you want to, only not blindly please.

And if tomorrow some language scholar demonstrates that the Jewish Exodus 21:22-25 really says something else than Jewish and Christian scholars have always thought, well, then it says something else and that's it. :shrug:

[Rhyfelwyr]

@Adrian: Thank you for that comparison of the various bibles, I have to say I am surprised at the variation in them.

And that is food for thought you have given me on the abortion issue. Although to be honest I've always been against it, not even from a religious point of view, more my gut feeling than anything.

Anyway its question time. My KJ bible says Adam was 138 years old, then a few lines down says he was 938 years old. Maybe this is supposed to be later on since the writing style is a little confusing?

Also I noticed when Adam and Eve are eating the fruit, God tells Eve she should (something along the lines of...) be obedient to Adam as punishment. Since she was in turn tricked by the serpent, do I sense a little manipulation through translation here to keep women in their place?

Also who does God say he will protect Cain from? When he says he will punish them sevenfold, but I thought the only other people were Adam and Eve at this point? Although other people are mentioned soon after.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, the answer to the last question is that everyone is living a long time and the chonology in Genesis is confused. Other sons/grandsons etc of Adam would be one possibiity.

[Ronin]

Anyway its question time. My KJ bible says Adam was 138 years old, then a few lines down says he was 938 years old. Maybe this is supposed to be later on since the writing style is a little confusing?



they didn´t have proofreaders back then...

that´s how those 'little' errors in logic made it through.

[Adrian II]

@Adrian: Thank you for that comparison of the various bibles, I have to say I am surprised at the variation in them.You are welcome. There are many similar interesting issues involving the canons. You already mentioned some. I chose this one for obvious reasons, and by the way I totally share your gut feeling about abortion.
Anyway its question time.To be frank, it's from-now-on-you-are-on-your-own time.

As long as you respect it and not reject it at first sight or after superficial reading, the story of Adam and Eve can be whatever you want it to be: God's exact word, an ancient myth that is incongruent for being composed from older (oral) sources, a tradition handed down to help a desert people frame their experiences, explain their feelings or found their social arrangements on.

If I were you I would treat the bible like any other literary source first, and ask: What's in it for me? Does this touch me in any way? What could have moved the authors to write these stories down so meticulously, even if sometimes the outcome is vague, contradictory or even completely absent. Most of all: what is it actually about?

Let it grow on you like any good book, like any old source such as the Quran, Gilgamesj, The Mahabharata. One day it will start speaking to you by itself- or it won't, and that will be a pity.

Of course if you want to find out more about this or that detail, there is no shortage of studies and viewpoints to help you.

[Xiahou]

How convenient.

Meanwhile millions of gullible readers are being had. Majorly.

Mind you, it’s only ‘God’s word’ they’re messing with. The fact that they mess with womens’ rights is far worse.
Prompted me to check the Catholic Bible. Can't say I'm surprised that it says miscarriage. No real point- just thought I'd throw that out there. Regardless, Exodus shouldn't be the basis for anyone's opinions on abortion. :shrug:

[Adrian II]

Regardless, Exodus shouldn't be the basis for anyone's opinions on abortion. :shrug:Probably not. :bow:

[ajaxfetish]

Anyway its question time. My KJ bible says Adam was 138 years old, then a few lines down says he was 938 years old. Maybe this is supposed to be later on since the writing style is a little confusing?

Also I noticed when Adam and Eve are eating the fruit, God tells Eve she should (something along the lines of...) be obedient to Adam as punishment. Since she was in turn tricked by the serpent, do I sense a little manipulation through translation here to keep women in their place?

Also who does God say he will protect Cain from? When he says he will punish them sevenfold, but I thought the only other people were Adam and Eve at this point? Although other people are mentioned soon after.
There are a few odd literary conventions in the Bible. I don't know if it's a side-effect of translation from a language with a different grammar, or a quirk of the age of translation, or just shoddy and confusing work by the translators themselves. In terms of age, there are a lot of genealogies in the books, and they often follow the format of:
-So and So was the son of Such and Such
-So and So was ____ years old when he begat his first son
-So and So lived ____ years after the son was born
-So and So was ____ years old when he died
In Adam's case, it's telling you he was 138 years old when Eve gave birth to Seth (not the first son, but Cain and Abel got diverted from the lineage), but then lived so long afterwards that he died at the ripe old age of 930. The folks in Genesis were notorious for waiting until they were centennarians before becoming parents and then living longer than anyone has any business doing. Your call whether you want to take it literally or assume that people writing such things down much later may have exaggerated or just made it all up. If it is literal, they either had very good birth control, strange ideas about when it's okay to start having sex, or they hit puberty around age 100. :shrug:

The Bible tends to be fairly inconsistent on major ethical issues (such as whether violence is justified), and this is certainly the case for the role and status of women. In some bits they have places of honor, in others they're pond scum (any of the writings attributed to Paul, for instance). You could certainly interpret the story of Eve as an early attempt to justify the subjugation of women.

On the Cain issue, there are a couple possible interpretations (as on so many issues). One is that Adam and Eve continued to be busy producing more little homonids, and not just the three we get to hear by name. Then they all presumably engaged in a delightful bunch of incest and the rest of the human race came into being. The issue is more complicated, however, since there are two versions of the human creation story (or myth): one in the first chapter of Genesis--"So God created man in his own image . . . male and female created he them"--and the other in the second chapter--"and there was not a man to till the ground . . . and the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground" . . . and the man gets called Adam and Eve is made from his rib. The first version is more egalitarian, as both man and woman are made in the image of God. The second a little more misogynistic as Eve is formed from the rib of a man, thus implying woman should be dependent on and subordinate to man. This could mean when the Bible was first compiled, the Hebrews had two versions of the story, and instead of combining them, decided to just stick them in one after the other. Others have interpreted it as meaning there was a general creation of humanity, and later Adam and Eve were created as the parents of the Hebrew nation, the chosen people of God. If you run with the second, there would be other people already around outside the family of Adam.

And in case you haven't realized it yet, the Bible is a very complicated and confusing set of books. Issues of equal complexity and equally diverse interpretation crop up constantly throughout the books. If it has no other value to a reader, reading and trying to make sense of it is an involved intellectual exercise, and good mental training. It's the complexity of it that gives me problems accepting the views of some Christians, who turn to the Bible as the ultimate, simple, black-and-white answer to all Christian problems. The Bible fully allows for the vast diversity of Christian sects, doctrines, and attitudes in the world today.

Ajax

[Husar]

So believe whatever you want to, only not blindly please.
Note the past tense. :sweatdrop:

[Rhyfelwyr]

To be frank, it's from-now-on-you-are-on-your-own time.

Don't worry, I'm not planning to turn the Guild into a Bible Study. Just getting an idea on how exactly to interpret things while I'm early on. I think I know how to go at it now anyway, so you shouldn't be needing to answer any more questions. Thank you for your help so far though.:bow:

@Ajax: Hmm I don't really like the sound of the incest story. Maybe God made more poeple out of the dust seperately?

[ajaxfetish]

@Ajax: Hmm I don't really like the sound of the incest story. Maybe God made more poeple out of the dust seperately?
Maybe. Again, it's all a matter of interpretation. However, though I hate to break it to you, you're not through with incest stories. In the Adam and Eve era, it may just be implied, but later in Genesis it's going to rear its ugly head quite explicitly--and repeatedly.

Ajax

[Craterus]

Bestiality makes a cameo too, correct?

[Adrian II]

Don't worry, I'm not planning to turn the Guild into a Bible Study.No problem. :bow:

One more thing if I may. Don't ridicule the 'loose ends' in the Bible, it's unworthy of your intellect. It's like ridiculing Relativity Theory because Albert Einstein never wore socks (which he didn't, you can check it). Like every venerable text the Bible is more or less its own measure; it was never intended to conform to modern notions of time, story composition, etcetera. I mean, the Maharbharata has sarees of infinite length, flying monkeys (Hanuman) and a guy (Ganesha) with an elephant's head on his body in it, and is none the worse for it.

Only if litteralists start talking about the Bible as God's eternal and infallible word, you may want to trot out the odd circus horse like Adam and Eve's incest, Adam's age or the funny stuff about animals with split hoofs and confront them with it. It's their problem, not yours.

[Rhyfelwyr]

No problem. :bow:

One more thing if I may. Don't ridicule the 'loose ends' in the Bible, it's unworthy of your intellect. It's like ridiculing Relativity Theory because Albert Einstein never wore socks (which he didn't, you can check it). Like every venerable text the Bible is more or less its own measure; it was never intended to conform to modern notions of time, story composition, etcetera.

Only if litteralists start talking about the Bible as God's eternal and infallible word, you may want to trot out the odd circus horse like Adam and Eve's incest, Adam's age or the funny stuff about animals with split hoofs and confront them with it. It's their problem, not yours.

I never meant to ridicule anything I have read so far (because that obviosuly would be unworthy of my intellect).:wink:

I am genuinely reading it with an open mind, and will continue to do so.

Anyway my hijacking of this thread is now over.:pirate2:

[Adrian II]

I never meant to ridicule anything I have read so far (because that obviosuly would be unworthy of my intellect).:wink:

I am genuinely reading it with an open mind, and will continue to do so.

Anyway my hijacking of this thread is now over.:pirate2:And I'm probably starting to sound like someone's Granddad, so I better shut the **** up, too. :laugh4:

[Boyar Son]

Sure.

[ajaxfetish]

Bestiality makes a cameo too, correct?
It definitely shows up in the form of explicit prohibition. I can't think of an instance of it taking place in the text, at least not off the top of my head, but that certainly doesn't mean it isn't there. Certainly plenty of lurid material altogether, though. I think Judges chapter 19 is the single most perverse chapter in the work, personally.

Ajax

[Sigurd]

We can also use Richard Dawkins and his "spectrum of probabilities":

Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.'
Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

This topic can't be dead yet...
So where do you place yourself if using Dawkins' spectrum? and why?

[macsen rufus]

6 - lack of evidence + Occam's Razor

I find 1 & 7 equally untenable - 100% certainty on an unknowable proposition is just too hubristic for my taste :bow:

[Ronin]

6 over here too....I just don´t see anything to indicate there´s anyone watching over us....so I assume there isn´t.

1 and 7 are out there....I´ve never been that certain of anything...specially without proof.

[Viking]

This topic can't be dead yet...
So where do you place yourself if using Dawkins' spectrum? and why?

7

An omnipotent being capable of doing anything, and he does what? Creates a universe and some ants inside of which he watches over?

If I were him, I'd creat another god; it got to be boring to only have one person, oneself, at the same intellectual level. Ohh, this is not my only "argument", tis one of a gahzillion.

[Craterus]

7

An omnipotent being capable of doing anything, and he does what? Creates a universe and some ants inside of which he watches over?

If I were him, I'd creat another god; it got to be boring to only have one person, oneself, at the same intellectual level. Ohh, this is not my only "argument", tis one of a gahzillion.

I don't really think you can make an argument based on God's hobbies.
Maybe he's already been doing all that stuff for billions of years and thought he'd try us out as an amusing side-project.

Besides...God is beyond our comprehension, so don't question him ~:rolleyes:

[Viking]

I don't really think you can make an argument based on God's hobbies.
Maybe he's already been doing all that stuff for billions of years and thought he'd try us out as an amusing side-project.


I don't know, I haven't created my own ant hill yet. Maybe later?


Besides...God is beyond our comprehension, so don't question him ~:rolleyes:

I guess that means that I should be an agnostic then; since I am not allow to ask myself the question whether he exists or not, I must wait for a personal confirmation. ~;)

[Ronin]

I guess that means that I should be an agnostic then; since I am not allow to ask myself the question whether he exists or not, I must wait for a personal confirmation. ~;)

you make sure to have a comfy seat for all that waiting....a good book helps too :book:

[atheotes]

you make sure to have a comfy seat for all that waiting....a good book helps too :book:

:laugh4:

i am a 6 as well.... defacto atheist.

[Sigurd]

What? only people from the bottom here? :beam:

Myself, I think I fall in between 3 and 4 somewhere.
I can't rid myself of the hope, I guess that's it, HOPE that there are something beyond our current understanding of this. I guess carrying a terminal illness will put hope into any equation.

I am however not quite ready to take Pascal's wager.
There is absolutely no way of knowing short of heavenly visitations, which faith or which direction you must follow to satisfy the demands of whatever criteria there is for eternal life or life beyond death.

Having a miniscule knowledge of the religions of the world ... where is critical thinking in the followers of religion? ... makes me realise that they are in opposition with eachother.
I have heard a few people say, all religions are right, it doesn't matter which you join. But ... the individual denomination and faith claims they are the right one, the only right one; only by following their guidlines can you achieve heaven, nirvana etc, etc...
I say, if there is a god, they are all wrong.

[Sigurd]

6 - lack of evidence + Occam's Razor
:bow:
I find it funny that people use Occam to this question, knowing that William of Ockham was very much the theist being a friar.

[Quirinus]

This topic can't be dead yet...
So where do you place yourself if using Dawkins' spectrum? and why?
I would place myself on #6. I find it improbable, like I find UFOs/ESP/WMDs-in-Iraq etc. improbable. But going beyond #6 to #7 strays a little too close to dogma and faith for comfort. Because we really can't know for certain that he (or He/She/It) doesn't exist, IMO.


I find it funny that people use Occam to this question, knowing that William of Ockham was very much the theist being a friar.
Charles Darwin was trained a cleric, Gregor Mendel was an abbot of a church. So what?

[macsen rufus]

I find it funny that people use Occam to this question, knowing that William of Ockham was very much the theist being a friar.

True, but a twelfth century one. I am now sitting on the shoulders of nearly a millenium of scientific giants who have offered us many more alternative explanations than the one depending on an entity which can safely be shaved away without the whole edifice crumbling :bow:


God is beyond our comprehension, so don't question him

Sorry, but where does this come from? What IS there to question except that which is beyond our comprehension?

[Quirinus]

Sorry, but where does this come from? What IS there to question except that which is beyond our comprehension?
I'm not sure, but I think he was being ironic. Note the roll-eye emoticon at the end of that sentence.

[Abokasee]

I do believe this has been covered in a popular TV show:
Mythbusters: Does Go exsit? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9izVu_TtAE)

[Puzz3D]

This topic can't be dead yet...
So where do you place yourself if using Dawkins' spectrum? and why?
I don't place myself anywhere in Dawkin's spectrum because the existence of God is of no consequence to me since I believe that a person's consciousness ends with their death. I find the supposition that metaphysical thought exists independent of the physical brain, and that, through some unknown mechanism which involves no transference of energy, it animates the brain to be preposterous. This idea, which is at the basis of every religion that promises eternal life, arose during a time when people readily accepted metaphysical causes for physical phenomena. The idea that a person (even common people) can live forever is very attractive, and is documented as far back as 2500 BC in Egypt with the worship of Osiris.