Shotgun 1
Recommended Posts
devildog 0
None of these are the creation of the entire universe, nor do any prove the non existence of God -- or rather the non-necessity of God.Quote>I'd love to read about us witnessing the creation of an entire universe . . .
?? No one said anything about "witnessing the creation of the entire universe." What I said was that science can now explain how that can happen. Religion cannot.
As an example, no one saw how the girders in either of the World Trade Centers finally failed. But we can use science to know how heat causes metals to lose their strength, and how impact can damage or destroy building structure. Thus while we cannot say "this is exactly what happened" we can say "this is what likely happened." And that's why we know that we don't need a conspiracy (or nanothermite or shaped charges) to explain why the buildings collapsed.
But a few examples for you:
Very simple self-replicating organic molecules created in the lab:http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/sri-ssd010909.php
Telescope observes planetary disk forming around a star:http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/02/watching-the-dawn-of-planet-fo.html
Telescope observes a birthplace of stars:http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap110728.html
Maybe I should have been more clear in my original point. I'm not saying that God is a necessary component to bring about life inside the Universe, as in, God created the Universe and then had to do some fine tuning inside to get life. I'm going much further back than the origin of life, or planets, or galaxies. I'm going to the very beginning and saying we have not come anywhere close to saying, let alone understanding, what exactly caused the beginning of the Universe itself (Big Bang and friends), what it looked like to any certainty, etc. The only way God is truly knocked out of the picture is to show the entire Universe coming from nothing, which we haven't done, and honestly, can't even test for (which gets back to the idea that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence because no test can be concocted to give an answer either way).
You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.
quade 4
QuoteThe only way God is truly knocked out of the picture is to show the entire Universe coming from nothing, which we haven't done . . .
Actually, we have. Further, it's not all that hard to understand the basics of it. Just because you seem to have not made the effort to do so doesn't mean its not out there.
Here are some of the basics to get you started;
http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/space-exploration/did-god-create-universe-episode.htm
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
billvon 3,090
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>why do they have such a problem with how all of those physical forces
>create faith and a personal relationship with God?
They don't:
http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Belief-Unleashing-Consciousness-Miracles/dp/0975991477
http://www.amazon.com/Why-God-Wont-Go-Away/dp/0345440331
>If all that exists is a result of physical forces then God consciousness for
>millions of people must be a natural occurrence of the random nature of
>matter and energy.
Well, not quite random.
>create faith and a personal relationship with God?
They don't:
http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Belief-Unleashing-Consciousness-Miracles/dp/0975991477
http://www.amazon.com/Why-God-Wont-Go-Away/dp/0345440331
>If all that exists is a result of physical forces then God consciousness for
>millions of people must be a natural occurrence of the random nature of
>matter and energy.
Well, not quite random.
jclalor 12
QuoteQuote
Sure it has. Science has done an excellent job of proving that you don't NEED God to produce a universe i.e. there are simple physical processes that can produce universes, galaxies, matter, energy, planets, atmospheres, organic chemistry and simple life.
Since scientists have such a good handle on how the physical processes create the universe, why do they have such a problem with how all of those physical forces create faith and a personal relationship with God? If all that exists is a result of physical forces then God consciousness for millions of people must be a natural occurrence of the random nature of matter and energy.
It seems so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotheology
jakee 1,572
QuoteSince scientists have such a good handle on how the physical processes create the universe, why do they have such a problem with how all of those physical forces create faith and a personal relationship with God?
What problem?
QuoteIf all that exists is a result of physical forces then God consciousness for millions of people must be a natural occurrence of the random nature of matter and energy.
So what's your point?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
Quotescares the fuck out of me that we are still feeding this crap to kids,
QFT
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteShow me the proof and I'll believe
It's within you...somewhere.
No. I can absolutely guarantee it's not. No proof can come from "within" me. That's the entire point. I need objective proof, not some subjective wishy-wash.
but you can't absolutely guarantee that, can you?
I absolutely, 100% can guarantee I will not have faith in
a god until I'm shown objective proof.
I've been shown far too much objective proof there is no need for him and quite a bit of subjective evidence in my personal life he doesn't exist at all that you're simply not going to convince me he does exist any other way.
I will
Pray you find that proof
I am ALIVE!
Marinus 0
Edit: woops, wrong button
Marinus 0
QuoteEither way, being a theist or atheist, is never a 100% certainty.
If we can't observe/measure god, nor his influence in this world, it pretty much makes god irrelevant to us humans. This is supported by the fact that religious folk don't agree on anything, that religion has no supernatural effect on this world and that religion has all the hallmarks of a human cultural phenomenon.
So yes, I agree with you, both theism and atheism lack proof (although atheism makes much more sense) and so I'm not an atheist nor a theist. Because God is irrelevant, it's simply not worth wasting time in pondering the question whether god exists or not.
There might be 3 legged creatures dancing the flabagra on planet flakulu 3000 lightyears away, but since it doesn't concern or affect me in any way, they irrelevant to me, whether they're there or not. God is exactly in the same category as far as I'm concerned.
It's called apatheism. It doesn't answer the question if god exists, it simply states that the very question "Does god exist?" is so unimportant that it doesn't need to be answered.
pirana 0
QuoteQuotePut another way, prove invisible elves do not exist - and aren't stealing the produce from my garden at night. Not possible. However, if I claimed such events were happening, I'd have no credence whatsoever unless I could show evidentiary proof.
I'll tell you what...If you can get, like...lets say, um...practically the whole freaking world as witnesses of kleptomaniac elves, you might have a point.
Exactly my point. No witnesses, because there is nothing to witness.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
GeorgiaDon 379
I hadn't heard the term "apatheism" before, it's an interesting alternative to the other "isms". Thanks.QuoteIf we can't observe/measure god, nor his influence in this world, it pretty much makes god irrelevant to us humans. This is supported by the fact that religious folk don't agree on anything, that religion has no supernatural effect on this world and that religion has all the hallmarks of a human cultural phenomenon.
So yes, I agree with you, both theism and atheism lack proof (although atheism makes much more sense) and so I'm not an atheist nor a theist. Because God is irrelevant, it's simply not worth wasting time in pondering the question whether god exists or not.
It's called apatheism. It doesn't answer the question if god exists, it simply states that the very question "Does god exist?" is so unimportant that it doesn't need to be answered.
I see your point, but for me there is an important distinction. In principle, there could indeed be flabagra-dancing creatures (or kleptomaniac eleves for that matter) on a planet they call flakulu somewhere in the universe, and in principle one could verify that by going there, or by establishing some sort of communication with them. The example you give seems highly improbable, but it doesn't require one to believe in a universe that operates by a completely different set of rules than the one we experience every day. Indeed, given a large enough universe, even very improbable events are very likely to occur somewhere. On the other hand, a "God" in the sense that most religious people conceive of the term is an intelligent entity that intervenes in the world directly, choosing who will survive a plane crash or win a football game, all without leaving any trace that could even in principle be detected or measured. No extra energy added to system to change the trajectory of flying plane bits or a football, or to slow down or speed up a player on the football field, nothing that can ever be measured, because that would remove the element of "faith" needed to be virtuous. This requires a universe that operates by completely different rules, where energy and mass are not conserved, where cause and effect are disconnected. In principle, one day the sun could start rising in the West and setting in the East, without anyone ever detecting the change in angular momentum as the Earth's revolution around its axis flipped to the complete opposite, should God decide that would be amusing (as in the "miracle" at Fatima where the sun stood still in the sky). This is a very different situation from one that involves merely improbable events that don't violate our understanding of the rules by which the world works. In fact, an interventionist God would basically mean that there are no "rules", other than God's current "whim", and in principle it is impossible to learn anything about how the world works through experience or the scientific method because it could all change in an instant should God's "whims" change.QuoteThere might be 3 legged creatures dancing the flabagra on planet flakulu 3000 lightyears away, but since it doesn't concern or affect me in any way, they irrelevant to me, whether they're there or not. God is exactly in the same category as far as I'm concerned.
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Marinus 0
QuoteI hadn't heard the term "apatheism" before, it's an interesting alternative to the other "isms". Thanks.
It's rather new and rather rare. I had trouble to decide whether I was an agnostic or atheist when I stumbled upon the term, I read a bit about it, and concluded that that was exactly what I believed. You should try it, it's young, it's fresh and it saves loads of time.
QuoteI see your point, but for me there is an important distinction. In principle, there could indeed be flabagra-dancing creatures (or kleptomaniac eleves for that matter) on a planet they call flakulu somewhere in the universe, and in principle one could verify that by going there, or by establishing some sort of communication with them.
The metaphor makes the point well, but it's a bit flawed indeed. But that's not it's main flaw, because, while I think it's very unlikely, I don't totally rule out the possibility that we prove the existence of a creator one day. But I'm rather sure that wouldn't change anything for us.
It's main flaw is the fact that we already have abundant proof that planetary lifeforms that dance exist. Just look in the mirror to see one. God doesn't have that.
QuoteThe example you give seems highly improbable, but it doesn't require one to believe in a universe that operates by a completely different set of rules than the one we experience every day.
If you take a deistic type of god, for example a god that sets the constants, hits the Big Bang button and sits back to watch the show, our universe wouldn't be different because that god existed. I'm using a rather broad definition of the concept "god" here. That God could even decide to put a signature of sorts in his creation for intelligent beings to find. There you have your proof and still nothing would change.
I agree fully with the rest your wrote about the intervening type of gods. There's ways around it, god could use the butterfly effect for instance. He makes a butterfly flap its wings in the Amazon, and days later the plane crashes in a light breeze instead of a calm. The trajectory of the debris is changed slightly, and voilà you're not decapitated by a plane window. But yeah, that's just silly.
The anthropomorphic Abrahamic god you mostly refer too is far more unlikely then that. With unlikely I mean if I start off with 0,000000000.... this moment and start typing zero's till I die of old age, I wouldn't have nearly enough zeros to have typed the probability of that god existing.
QuoteANOTHER religiophobe nutter posting...sheesh.
When I see another rash of anti Christianity thread I go see what dumb ass thing the democrats are doing now. Our left leaning posters tend to gravitate to religion bashing when they don't want to talk politics.
You are only as strong as the prey you devour
Niki1 2
QuoteQuoteSedimentary rock is good? How do you prepare it? And which type of wine goes with it?
Good in the sense that God created it so it has to be good. You generally don't consume rock. And I don't drink wine (or any alcohol)...it's a sin.
You certainly have the appropriate sig line.
If your voices said it, it must be true.
Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done.
Louis D Brandeis
Where are we going and why are we in this basket?
Louis D Brandeis
Where are we going and why are we in this basket?
I think that this is something that is being addressed through evolutionary religious studies and such. I'm no expert, but I think the idea is that religion or belief in gods came about as we developed brains that were neurologically capable of coming up with such ideas. And, judging from the prevalence of people who believe/have believed in god(s), it suggests that this belief has had some kind of evolutionary advantage. Or something like that...
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites