Why God is Imaginary [Archive] - Beyond.ca - Car Forums

anyone

10-18-2007, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE
Sorry, I was being facetious. I was implying that I worked there.....you know, this job is hell kind of thing.

Hahaha, I got the joke. It is funny, if you understand it.

About the thread, though. This is a pretty limited focus as to why God is imaginary. "I prayed and nothing happened" - so? I don't think God is necessarily proclaimed to provide solutions to whatever anyone asks. "I want $1mil.... poof! *$1min appears*"

I don't believe in God, but I don't think that lack of proof through prayer can qualitatively determine that God is imaginary.

JRSC00LUDE

10-18-2007, 09:35 AM

Oh sorry, I meant to say the R & D sector in the prince of darkness' "creative soul harvesting" division. We're constantly looking for new and creative ways to deceive the pious and devout into accidentally committing their souls to us.

It's a good job.

89coupe

10-18-2007, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by anyone

I don't believe in God, but I don't think that lack of proof through prayer can qualitatively determine that God is imaginary.

That is only one example of 50 pages. Keep reading.

lint

10-18-2007, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by 89coupe
Stumbled across this site and found it extremely entertaining.

http://godisimaginary.com/i1.htm

Some great examples and arguments to debunk God.

You can't fight religion with logic.

89coupe

10-18-2007, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by lint

You can't fight religion with logic.

Who's fighting it?

I'm just trying to spread the truth about God.

Join the revolution.:D

Antonito

10-18-2007, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by lint

You can't fight religion with logic.

Which bugs me, because religious people hold science up to intense scrutiny and claims any flaw as a complete debunking, and yet a complete lack of any scientific data to support religion is not an issue. And yet still they want to teach it in non-religious schools as facts.

89coupe

10-18-2007, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Antonito

Which bugs me, because religious people hold science up to intense scrutiny and claims any flaw as a complete debunking, and yet a complete lack of any scientific data to support religion is not an issue. And yet still they want to teach it in non-religious schools as facts.

Page 11 covers this very well.:thumbsup:

http://godisimaginary.com/i11.htm

snowboard

10-18-2007, 09:53 AM

there is nothing to fight?
how is god NOT imaginary is the real fight haha
if you can show proof of him being not imaginary you win a prize.

edit: shit, this whole argument makes me so mad. someone just made this shit up and told there kids, just like your parents tell you to go to church have faith and not sin.
if drinking and fucking is worth going to hell in the after life in gods eyes, hes a prick. haha if there were such thing.

Mr_ET

10-18-2007, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by 89coupe

Do you believe in Hell?

Nope

I also am still wondering why we choose to define something we don't understand by calling it "God"

I believe there is something greater because believing we are alone would be stupid but I don't believe in anything else we are taught because it has never been proven to me.

rmk

10-18-2007, 10:04 AM

That link is brilliant :rofl:

Supa Dexta

10-18-2007, 10:07 AM

thats good stuff right there. The sooner we all get passed religion the better off we'll be..

this should be a movie, or atleast tv mini series

Janice

10-18-2007, 10:13 AM

It all depends on what you consider to be 'proof'. Although there are no empirical arguments for the existence of god, there are metaphysical ones.

In North America especially there is a tendency for people to believe in only that which they can sense i.e. touch, smell, taste, see, hear. However ideas like infinity (which is obviously not within human capacity to sense) is commonly thought to exist. The idea of infinity is a metaphysical one and as such there is a metaphysical argument it. Just like infinity, there are metaphysical arguments that provide logical 'proof' of the existence of a god.

Try reading Plotinus, Descartes, Augustine for starters. It is possible to provide a logical argument that a god exists, as these long-since-dead philosophers have demonstrated. Now whether this god belongs to any organized religion is another question...

89coupe

10-18-2007, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Janice
It all depends on what you consider to be 'proof'. Although there are no empirical arguments for the existence of god, there are metaphysical ones.

In North America especially there is a tendency for people to believe in only that which they can sense i.e. touch, smell, taste, see, hear. However ideas like infinity (which is obviously not within human capacity to sense) is commonly thought to exist. The idea of infinity is a metaphysical one and as such there is a metaphysical argument it. Just like infinity, there are metaphysical arguments that provide logical 'proof' of the existence of a god.

Try reading Plotinus, Descartes, Augustine for starters. It is possible to provide a logical argument that a god exists, as these long-since-dead philosophers have demonstrated. Now whether this god belongs to any organized religion is another question...

So you believe the universe and everything in it was created by one Being? A God?

Janice

10-18-2007, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by 89coupe

So you believe the universe and everything in it was created by one Being? A God?

I never said *I* believe in God. I just know there are many philosophical arguments providing logical proof, that's all. I just thought I would put that into the mix as you can't base your opinion on only hearing one side of the story. It's all about being open-minded right?

Personally I am hard pressed to believe in God. However I believe in infinity and gravity, so maybe God does exist. That was my point. I figure I will find out when I am dead.

Super_Geo

10-18-2007, 10:28 AM

God is an easy answer to questions in life (both hard and easy) for people who are either incapable or too lazy to look for a rational explination.

TKRIS

10-18-2007, 10:30 AM

Bwahahaha.

Holy shit.
Did you really just equate the logical arguments to the existance of god to the logical arguments to the existance of gravity?

That's fucking hilarious.

If so, you obviously don't understand the concepts of logic, gravity, or god...

89coupe

10-18-2007, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Janice

I never said *I* believe in God. I just know there are many philosophical arguments providing logical proof, that's all. I just thought I would put that into the mix as you can't base your opinion on only hearing one side of the story. It's all about being open-minded right?

Personally I am hard pressed to believe in God. However I believe in infinity and gravity, so maybe God does exist. That was my point. I figure I will find out when I am dead.

Logic is science. There are no scientific explanations for "God".

If you have even one, please post it.

*prettyboy*

10-18-2007, 10:32 AM

so many christians and muslims believe that if u dont sin u go to heaven . but if u do u go to the burning fires of hell ..... But god loves u ...

sputnik

10-18-2007, 10:33 AM

I want someone to finally prove how this world isn't imaginary. Perhaps all of the things I see and touch and experience are just imaginary.

For instance, one question I can't wrap my head around is how did the universe begin to exist. How is it that it always just existed. Where did it originate? Is the universe as we know it truly infinite? Where do you end up if you just "keep going"?

89coupe

10-18-2007, 10:37 AM

Weapon_R

10-18-2007, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by 89coupe

Read this.

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

Then read this.

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

K, now prove it.

sputnik

10-18-2007, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by *prettyboy*
so many christians and muslims believe that if u dont sin u go to heaven . but if u do u go to the burning fires of hell ..... But god loves u ...

I don't care what you believe.

However you might want to actually learn about Christianity or Islam before entering this thread so that you don't continue to make yourself look like an idiot.

Christians believe that "...all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23)

Mr_ET

10-18-2007, 10:39 AM

Logic and science was invented by humans. This or these "beings" are outside of our realm of comprehension and that is why we define "it" as God to fill the void it's incomprehension creates in all of us.

Cword

10-18-2007, 10:39 AM

'when asked whether I am an atheist to point out that the questioner is also an atheist when considering Zeus, Apollo, Amon-Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I just go one god further.'
from
http://www.richarddawkins.net
which is full of more good reading

sputnik

10-18-2007, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by 89coupe

Read this.

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

Then read this.

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

Wow. Wikipedia.

I guess since it was on the Internet that it MUST be true.

I also see the word "theory" and "unknown" show up quite a bit in those.

Mr_ET

10-18-2007, 10:45 AM

89coupe

10-18-2007, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by Mr_ET
Logic and science was invented by humans. This or these "beings" are outside of our realm of comprehension and that is why we define "it" as God to fill the void it's incomprehension creates in all of us.

Science uses experiment to back up its facts. You cannot argue science if it has been proven.

Science and theory use logical reasoning to base the theory.

God, the Bible & Religion was invented without logic or science.

Janice

10-18-2007, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by TKRIS
Bwahahaha.

Holy shit.
Did you really just equate the logical arguments to the existance of god to the logical arguments to the existance of gravity?

That's fucking hilarious.

If so, you obviously don't understand the concepts of logic, gravity, or god...

You obviously missed my point. I was talking about ideas that you cannot prove without logic. You CANNOT prove gravity exists without mathematical explanation, which is not PHYSICAL proof. If you drop your pen and it falls to the floor you can't say it is 'gravity', you would say there is an 'unseen force' making your pen drop to the ground.

I am certainly not equating the arguments for gravity (which are mathematical) to those of god (purely logical), just saying they both have a metaphysical basis.

Weapon_R

10-18-2007, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Mr_ET

why do we have to define all this? Why can't we just be ok with not knowing?

Because unless you can define them and prove them, arguing that god does not exist makes you sound as stupid as those who argue that god exists.

Janice

10-18-2007, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by 89coupe

Science uses experiment to back up its facts. You cannot argue science if it has been proven.

Science doesn't PROVE anything. Science provides support for different hypotheses about the mechanisms driving our observations of the natural world. Nothing in science is a FACT, there are always exceptions to the rule. Even Darwin's theory of evolution is not a fact, it is a strongly supported theory. Darwin's theory still receives valid criticism to this very day.

89coupe

10-18-2007, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Janice

I am certainly not equating the arguments for gravity (which are mathematical) to those of god (purely logical), just saying they both have a metaphysical basis.

Logic is science.

The invention of God used no logic.

89coupe

10-18-2007, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Janice

Science doesn't PROVE anything. Science provides support for different hypotheses about the mechanisms driving our observations of the natural world. Nothing in science is a FACT, there are always exceptions to the rule. Even Darwin's theory of evolution is not a fact, it is a strongly supported theory. Darwin's theory still receives valid criticism to this very day.

Do you understand the definition of fact?

Scientific facts?

Mr_ET

10-18-2007, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Weapon_R

Because unless you can define them and prove them, arguing that god does not exist makes you sound as stupid as those who argue that god exists.

I'm not arguing that he does or doesn't exist and there will always be people on both ends saying he does or doesn't.

I am saying that it would be foolish to beileve that something greater than you and I doesn't exist and it would also be foolish to define this being as "God"

Destinova403

10-18-2007, 10:53 AM

isnt it amazing how humanity puts almost complete faith into somthing that cannot and will not be verified by science...

89coupe

10-18-2007, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Destinova403
isnt it amazing how humanity puts almost complete faith into somthing that cannot and will not be verified by science...

Um lets be more specific.

I am human and I do not believe in "God" as "some" humans have "learned" to believe in.

Konj

10-18-2007, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by 89coupe

Science uses experiment to back up its facts. You cannot argue science if it has been proven.

Science and theory use logical reasoning to base the theory.

God, the Bible & Religion was invented without logic or science.

Religion was invented because:
- Science was primitive and only explanation was that there is something greater and unseen.
- No one want's to accept the fact that there is no life after death
so the concept of afterlife such as heaven and hell where created
- Religion can be viewed as a form of government to keep people in line to control them, thus the concept heaven and hell make's sense

sputnik

10-18-2007, 10:57 AM

The reason I brought up the Universe and Big Bang is that scientists are currently willing to accept that they have no idea where the energy for the big bang came from or what exists beyond the universe.

However many are willing to let those things be "imaginary" and continue on with life but if you call that energy or that space "God" or "a god" you are labeled as being ignorant or stupid when in reality NO ONE knows and everyone is just taking a guess.

It seems strange to me that someone who believes that an imaginary fireball of energy that existed in a physical void one day decided to blow up and expand into the complex universe as we know it in a space of unknown size and unknown content seems not much more crazy that believing an imaginary metaphysical God created the universe and picked earth to build a civilization capable of having this very discussion.

At the end of the day we all believe is some unknown force or energy.

Mr_ET

10-18-2007, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by 89coupe

Um lets be more specific.

I am human and I do not believe in "God" as "some" humans have "learned" to believe in.

:werd: same here

89coupe

10-18-2007, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by sputnik
The reason I brought up the Universe and Big Bang is that scientists are currently willing to accept that they have no idea where the energy for the big bang came from or what exists beyond the universe.

The difference between scientists and God followers is that scientists use science to equate their theories of the unknown.

Where as God followers just make shit up.

Janice

10-18-2007, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by 89coupe

Logic is science.

The invention of God used no logic.

Originally posted by 89coupe

Do you understand the definition of fact?

Scientific facts?

Do you understand the definition of 'science'? Science does have limitations in what it can and cannot 'prove'.

Logic is not purely scientific. What about emotions or ideas you have in everyday life? Assuming they are logical do you think all your ideas have a basis in science? Do all of your ideas and emotions have a scientific basis? Can you really boil each person down to a series of chemical reactions going on in the brain in various sequences causing emotions and ideas? Do you not beleive there is a part of each of us that is not explained by science, such as WHO we are as individuals? These are questions you need to ask yourself if you truly beleive that all logical conclusions are derived scientifically

And what qualification do you have to make such bold statements? Have you truly and honestly looked at both sides of the story concerning the existence of god? I have a degree in philosophy and an honors degree in biology and am currently a grad student in science and I am more confused by the possibilities than anyone I know.

Unless you have studied all possibilities in full detail how can you make an informed decision? Anything other than an in-depth review of both sides in an honest manner is a biased opinion based on popular beliefs.

89coupe

10-18-2007, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by Janice

I have a degree in philosophy and an honors degree in biology and am currently a grad student in science and I am more confused by the possibilities than anyone I know.

Then you should be smart enough to realize that "most" religious views are based off the "Bible" and that the "Bible" was written by ancient man and that ancient man wasn't too smart.

How about you read the 50 pages on that site I posted and then get back to me ;)

BigMass

10-18-2007, 11:08 AM

The Big Bang essentially claims that something came from nothing. Violating the first law of Thermodynamics. Even Electrons and Photons that may "come from nothing" then disappear leaving no net loss or gain of energy are entities that exist and must have been created somehow. Then if you claim that photons and electrons can come from nothing, that assertion is about as scientifically sound as the belief in God.

Another minor mystery which intrigues me is that science has no grasp on the boundaries of human consciousness.

There is so much unknown in our universe, how people can claim that something does not exist as fact is absurd. The belief that something does not exist can never be substantiated as "fact". It is only a belief just like God. Therefore this debate, not in 1,000,000,000,000 years will ever be finished because it is only based on the opinions and beliefs of people on both sides.

On another note, science with time uncovers what was previously unknown. But to say that eventually everything that is unknown will be uncovered is to believe in infinity and will never be possible. Humans are so very arrogant in their knowledge of "everything"

writhen

10-18-2007, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by 89coupe

Do you understand the definition of fact?

Scientific facts?

You keep going on about the same thing. Here's the catch though, how do you know its fact besides crunching numbers? As stated before, you can't prove gravity or the existance of the universe. Mathematics and physics cannot account for the creation and existance of all things physical. It's just not possible because we aren't the ones who created the creation. Here's an analogy:

"It is as if the scientist were inside a large plastic balloon; he can shine his torch anywhere on the balloon's interior but cannot climb outside the balloon to view it as a whole, see where it is situated, or determine why it was fabricated." - Huston Smith

sputnik

10-18-2007, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by 89coupe

The difference between scientists and God followers is that scientists use science to equate their theories of the unknown.

Where as God followers just make shit up.

Unfortunately regardless of the perceived legitimacy of the process for establishing theories. A theory without proof is still just a theory that requires belief in an unknown and is still largely unproven.

So at this point the score is still 0-0.

However as humans are are discontent with unknowns so we associate ourselves in the camp that we feel most comfortable in and ridicule the others for their ignorance or lack of "just believing". But in reality when it comes to hard proof neither group has any. They just have theories.

Weapon_R

10-18-2007, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by BigMass
The Big Bang essentially claims that something came from nothing. Violating the first law of Thermodynamics. Even Electrons and Photons that may "come from nothing" then disappear leaving no net loss or gain of energy are entities that exist and must have been created somehow. Then if you claim that photons and electrons can come from nothing, that assertion is about as scientifically sound as the belief in God.

"BUT, LOOK AT THE LINK!! IT PROVES EVERYTHING"

BigMass

10-18-2007, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by 89coupe

Then you should be smart enough to realize that "most" religious views are based off the "Bible" and that the "Bible" was written by ancient man and that ancient man wasn't too smart.

I’m of the belief that ancient man was just as smart as anybody on earth today. The only advantages we have over ancient man is the accumulation of knowledge used to base new discoveries on. If Ancient man had all the information available to them as we do today they would have computers as well. It's arrogant to believe we're any more intelligent than people 3000-4000 years ago and im willing to bet many people 4000 years ago had higher IQs than people today. Don’t confuse accumulation of knowledge over time as being "smart".

sputnik

10-18-2007, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by 89coupe

Then you should be smart enough to realize that "most" religious views are based off the "Bible" and that the "Bible" was written by ancient man and that ancient man wasn't too smart.

How about you read the 50 pages on that site I posted and then get back to me ;)

Your website "proof" was probably written by a guy living in his mom's basement wearing 4 day old underwear.

What's your point?

writhen

10-18-2007, 11:14 AM

:rofl:

If you're biased to one side nothing anyone is going to say can sway your opinion, but its true, the score IS 0-0 and there's no real way of changing it until we die.

Personally I feel like I have experienced God, but thats just me and its just personal opinion. From the way some people are talking on here its really clear to see they aren't even giving the other side a fighting chance.

TKRIS

10-18-2007, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by sputnik
I want someone to finally prove how this world isn't imaginary. Perhaps all of the things I see and touch and experience are just imaginary.

For instance, one question I can't wrap my head around is how did the universe begin to exist.How is it that it always just existed. Where did it originate? Is the universe as we know it truly infinite? Where do you end up if you just "keep going"?

Where did god come from?
If we're too complex to be the product of pure evolution, and we must have been created due to our complexity, who created our creator, and his?
Where did the Alpha-Creator originally come from?
Who designed him?
When?
How does explaining complex problems with more complex problems not, ultimately, result in infinite complexity and improbability?

Answering a question with another much more complex set of questions will never result in a logical solution.

God always has, and always will, create more quetions than he answers. As such, using god as a solution to anything is the epitome of irrationality and shows either a complete disregard for reason, or a troubling amount of intellectual laziness.

To clarify, if you choose to believe based on faith, that's one thing: just don't claim logical backing, because it simply does not exist.
Before it is mentioned as some sort of poorly thought out argument against science: One of the differences between science adn religion is that religion, by it's very definition, is required to hold all the answers (as it has a genesis, and an originator). Science, on the other hand, freely admits to not yet having all the answers, but to be continually striving forward.

FWIW: Despite my distaste for their choices, I have a certain amount of respect for those who can say "I believe in god despite there being no scientific or logical evidence that he exists."
Their beliefs are based purely on faith, and despite all the evidence to the contrary, all the logical fallacies and non sequiturs, their convictions remain. While I don't agree with them, there is something to be said for their strength of purpose.

Others, who seek to undermine science and twist reason to support their beliefs, those who claim evidence supports their stance and point to misunderstood aspects of science as some sort of evidence to their irrational and predetermined conclusions, are nothing more than apologists who disrespect science and subvert the strength of conviction and faith of their fellow zealots.

They are fence sitters who refuse to choose to either connect the dots, or pretend the dots don't exist. They lack the convictions of the truely faithful, and the reason of the truely logical.

89coupe

10-18-2007, 11:21 AM

OK in really simple terms.

Science uses experiment to provide proof(FACT).

In the most simplest form, take one component and add it to another component and you get a 3rd.

Do this "experiment" 100 times over and if the result is the same 100 times, you can be pretty sure its FACT.

Science uses these fundementals to base their theories.

The origin of "God" however was not created by science, nor does it follow any logic.

"God" was created by humans who had no answers for the unknown so created a "God" that knew all but offered no answers. Simple as stupid can be.

Mr_ET

10-18-2007, 11:27 AM

so how long before this threads turns into insults/arguing and photoshops :) like any other discussion about god and religion?

Antonito

10-18-2007, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by TKRIS

Others, who seek to undermine science and twist reason to support their beliefs, those who claim evidence supports their stance and point to misunderstood aspects of science as some sort of evidence to their irrational and predetermined conclusions, are nothing more than apologists who disrespect science and subvert the strength of conviction and faith of their fellow zealots.

Can I steal this for my signature?

writhen

10-18-2007, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by 89coupe
OK in really simple terms.

Science uses experiment to provide proof(FACT).

In the most simplest form, take one component and add it to another component and you get a 3rd.

Do this "experiment" 100 times over and if the result is the same 100 times, you can be pretty sure its FACT.

Science uses these fundementals to base their theories.

The origin of "God" however was not created by science, nor does it follow any logic.

"God" was created by humans who had no answers for the unknown so created a "God" that knew all but offered no answers. Simple as stupid can be.

If you're comparing the physical to the spiritual/metaphysical on the grounds of physical evidence, it's an extremely biased comparison. Off course you can see that Na+Cl makes NaCl, but what about the atoms that make up Na? what makes up an atom? What makes up an electron, proton, neutron? The smaller and smaller you go the more hypothetical science gets. In the extremeties of comparison, science fails. So, you're back to square one, neither science nor faith has complete an absolute proof to prove the other side wrong. IMO the two work together as opposed to against each other, but thats another topic altogether.

TKRIS

10-18-2007, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by Antonito

Can I steal this for my signature?

Knock yourself out.

89coupe

10-18-2007, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by writhen

If you're comparing the physical to the spiritual/metaphysical on the grounds of physical evidence, it's an extremely biased comparison. Off course you can see that Na+Cl makes NaCl, but what about the atoms that make up Na? what makes up an atom? What makes up an electron, proton, neutron? The smaller and smaller you go the more hypothetical science gets. In the extremeties of comparison, science fails. So, you're back to square one, neither science nor faith has complete an absolute proof to prove the other side wrong. IMO the two work together as opposed to against each other, but thats another topic altogether.

But at least science makes the attempt to explain.

God believers don't, they just expect you to have faith blindly.

Do you not understand this?

Janice

10-18-2007, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by 89coupe

But at least science makes the attempt to explain.

God believers don't, they just expect you to have faith blindly.

Do you not understand this?

Organized religion, yes, I totally agree there is no emphasis on the arguments of WHY one should believe in god other than faith, at least this has been my experience.

But that doesn't mean arguments don't exist! I think it is extremely closed-minded to assume something isn't true without examining all possible arguments, even those you don't agree with.

mark4091

10-18-2007, 12:45 PM

Creation is just a very simple tale told thousands of years ago to explain why, I have a hard time trying to understand why people still believe it, mostly out of fear I guess.

If there was a true "ruler" of everything, don't you think it would be able to show itself? what is it afraid of? and what are it's motives, why would it create life just to make us die and put us somewhere?

Those are the first questions you should ask and after that, if you're still afraid of getting grilled in the center of the earth... by all means continue to do whatever you do

punj_abi

10-18-2007, 12:51 PM

janice ur just as stupid as u r ugly

Crymson

10-18-2007, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by punj_abi
janice ur just as stupid as u r ugly

Debate is fine, arguement is fine, but that is not fucking cool.

General Forum Rules
1. Personal Attacks will NOT be tolerated
2. No racist, sexist, hateful, threatening, obscene, or otherwise rude remarks

Weapon_R

10-18-2007, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Crymson

Debate is fine, arguement is fine, but that is not fucking cool.

General Forum Rules
1. Personal Attacks will NOT be tolerated
2. No racist, sexist, hateful, threatening, obscene, or otherwise rude remarks

Good point. Malicious personal attacks will not be tolerated.

lint

10-18-2007, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Janice

Science doesn't PROVE anything. Science provides support for different hypotheses about the mechanisms driving our observations of the natural world. Nothing in science is a FACT, there are always exceptions to the rule. Even Darwin's theory of evolution is not a fact, it is a strongly supported theory. Darwin's theory still receives valid criticism to this very day.

There are many proofs in science, particularly in mathematics and physics. You are confusing proof with theorem when they are not the same things.

liquid1010

10-18-2007, 01:07 PM

" But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.

89coupe

10-18-2007, 01:15 PM

Poetic nonsense.

89coupe

10-18-2007, 01:16 PM

Science has proved many things but "God" nor any human has proved that "God" exists.

Basically what I'm saying is that science has shown that it knows what its talking about, where as "God" believers have shown that they are really good at bullshitting.

reno97637

10-18-2007, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by TKRIS

Where did god come from?
If we're too complex to be the product of pure evolution, and we must have been created due to our complexity, who created our creator, and his?
Where did the Alpha-Creator originally come from?
Who designed him?
When?
How does explaining complex problems with more complex problems not, ultimately, result in infinite complexity and improbability?

Answering a question with another much more complex set of questions will never result in a logical solution.

God always has, and always will, create more quetions than he answers. As such, using god as a solution to anything is the epitome of irrationality and shows either a complete disregard for reason, or a troubling amount of intellectual laziness.

To clarify, if you choose to believe based on faith, that's one thing: just don't claim logical backing, because it simply does not exist.
Before it is mentioned as some sort of poorly thought out argument against science: One of the differences between science adn religion is that religion, by it's very definition, is required to hold all the answers (as it has a genesis, and an originator). Science, on the other hand, freely admits to not yet having all the answers, but to be continually striving forward.

FWIW: Despite my distaste for their choices, I have a certain amount of respect for those who can say "I believe in god despite there being no scientific or logical evidence that he exists."
Their beliefs are based purely on faith, and despite all the evidence to the contrary, all the logical fallacies and non sequiturs, their convictions remain. While I don't agree with them, there is something to be said for their strength of purpose.

Others, who seek to undermine science and twist reason to support their beliefs, those who claim evidence supports their stance and point to misunderstood aspects of science as some sort of evidence to their irrational and predetermined conclusions, are nothing more than apologists who disrespect science and subvert the strength of conviction and faith of their fellow zealots.

They are fence sitters who refuse to choose to either connect the dots, or pretend the dots don't exist. They lack the convictions of the truely faithful, and the reason of the truely logical.

Well said, I applaud you my friend.

I think the only proof we have of God, besides the Bible, is the testimonies of Christians.

EDIT: There's also a book about an Atheist who wanted to prove God did not exist. He ended up being Christian. Check out, More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell.

TKRIS

10-18-2007, 01:22 PM

Chesterton wrote fantasy and detective mystery books...

Regardless of how many times we have this discussion, you continue to insist on arguing against evolutionary science using philosophical musings...

If a philosopher contends that reality is relative, and it only exists in our minds, does that mean you won't die if you get hit by a truck? Fuck no.
Philosophy may have it's place, but it has no bearing on the scientific community.

sputnik

10-18-2007, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by 89coupe
Science has proved many things but "God" nor any human has proved that "God" exists.

Basically what I'm saying is that science has shown that it knows what its talking about, where as "God" believers have shown that they are really good at bullshitting.

I don't care about the God vs Science side of things, but your logic is broken.

No scientist has proven where the universe came from and defined its size nor has anyone proven if it has boundaries or limitations. So does that mean I can say that science is flawed? Is it really possible that anyone will be able to prove the origins and dimensions of the universe just as will anyone be able to prove the existence of a spiritual or "invisible" power?

If you want to win this argument prove to us all where the universe came from. Then you will win.

Otherwise. The score is still 0-0.

TKRIS

10-18-2007, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by reno97637

Well said, I applaud you my friend.

I think the only proof we have of God, besides the Bible, is the testimonies of Christians. Anybody have a testimony? I have one.

I have a friend who is a very normal, well balanced, funny, intelligent guy. You'd never suspect he could believe something like this from anything in his personality, but he swears he saw a leprechaun one night while he was staying over at his grandma's house.
Would you call that proof of the existance of leprechauns? Not for anyone other than him...

Vernacular plays a very important role in these discussions. The subjective, uncorroborated speculative "testimony" of god's existance is a far cry from what could be called proof. Especially a scientific proof.

89coupe

10-18-2007, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by sputnik

No scientist has proven where the universe came from and defined its size nor has anyone proven if it has boundaries or limitations. So does that mean I can say that science is flawed? Is it really possible that anyone will be able to prove the origins and dimensions of the universe just as will anyone be able to prove the existence of a spiritual or "invisible" power?

If you want to win this argument prove to us all where the universe came from. Then you will win.

Otherwise. The score is still 0-0.

That is correct, but like I said, science admits to the unknown with the goal to know.

"God" believers expect you to believe without knowing.

Do you see the irony?

liquid1010

10-18-2007, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by TKRIS
Chesterton wrote fantasy and detective mystery books...

Regardless of how many times we have this discussion, you continue to insist on arguing against evolutionary science using philosophical musings...

If a philosopher contends that reality is relative, and it only exists in our minds, does that mean you won't die if you get hit by a truck? Fuck no.
Philosophy may have it's place, but it has no bearing on the scientific community.

I don't have the time to debate this, but saying Chesterton wrote only mystery and fantasy books is just misinformed. Remember, learning from Wikipedia is limited ;)

As far as arguing philisophy versus Science... what heck in the above quote qualifies as philosophy? All he is simply stating is his view on modern "intelligence and skepticism"... and how inherently contradictory people can be.

As for saying Philosphy and Science have no place amongst each other... that's just ridiculous. Depending on how you define philosophy and thought, it is always the precursor to science..... ie: see deductive reasoning. Try telling guys some of our modern or historical physcists who conceptualized the ideas of classical and quantum physics the two don't belong in the same room.

As for 89Coupe....
Also, adding onto what sputnik stated... your own logical steps are both convoluted and wrong. You do realize that science is in a constant state of flux right? It's constantly proving itself wrong (which is a good thing, as it leads to progress). Not everything has been figured out yet ;)

TKRIS

10-18-2007, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by sputnik

I don't care about the God vs Science side of things, but your logic is broken.

No scientist has proven where the universe came from and defined its size nor has anyone proven if it has boundaries or limitations. So does that mean I can say that science is flawed? Is it really possible that anyone will be able to prove the origins and dimensions of the universe just as will anyone be able to prove the existence of a spiritual or "invisible" power?

If you want to win this argument prove to us all where the universe came from. Then you will win.

Otherwise. The score is still 0-0.

Not exactly.
Your entire argument relies solely on Bertrand Russell's "Celestial Teapot" scenario.

You're relying on the argument that a complete lack of evidence that something exists does not prove it does not exist. While this may be partially true, it does not mean that there is an acceptable likelihood of that thing existing.
In other words, just because you can't 100% prove that there is a teapot orbiting the earth does not mean it is likely, or even plausible, to believe there is a teapot orbiting the earth.

89coupe

10-18-2007, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by liquid1010

As for 89Coupe....
Also, adding onto what sputnik stated... your own logical steps are both convoluted and wrong. You do realize that science is in a constant state of flux right? It's constantly proving itself wrong (which is a good thing, as it leads to progress). Not everything has been figured out yet ;)

See my post before this one.

Janice

10-18-2007, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by lint

There are many proofs in science, particularly in mathematics and physics. You are confusing proof with theorem when they are not the same things.

Quite right, my mistake. But then I might revise my opinion to mathematics and physics provide logical proofs, but theories such as the theory of evolution and the big bang are only theories and are not proofs. It isn't right to think of science as being the only way we can obtain knowledge, in my opinion.

Originally posted by TKRIS

If a philosopher contends that reality is relative, and it only exists in our minds, does that mean you won't die if you get hit by a truck? Fuck no.
Philosophy may have it's place, but it has no bearing in the scientific community

You are speaking in extreme terms here. Obviously no one person can be a complete metaphysicist.

Have you never heard of the philosophy of science? There are many books written on the topic.

I am only proposing that other people have proposed logical arguments for the existence of a god, that's all. As said, I am a scientist myself and have a hard time believing in things I can't empirically test. Even if you could 'test' whether god exists empirically or not, I'm not sure that would be a good enough proof either, like the leprechaun example. However, I also know I have ideas and thoughts that have no basis in reality, like infinity, so it is possible that god might exist too if infinity exists. Just a thought.

89coupe

10-18-2007, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Janice

However, I also know I have ideas and thoughts that have no basis in reality, like infinity, so it is possible that god might exist too if infinity exists. Just a thought.

But where did the word "God" originate from? Earliest record of course is the Bible.

The Bible was written by Man.

Mans stories in the Bible have been put to the test by science and in many cases been proved wrong.

So this begs the question, how credible is the Bible?

I think that is an easy question to answer. ;)

sputnik

10-18-2007, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by 89coupe

That is correct, but like I said, science admits to the unknown with the goal to know.

"God" believers expect you to believe without knowing.

Do you see the irony?

I don't know about that.

Many theories are taught in schools as if they are fact.

Scientists may admit there are many unknowns, but there are enough zealots willing to remove the word "theory" after "Big Bang" or before "of Evolution".

In the same way that most religious people believe that they require a great amount of faith to believe what they do and there are also a bunch of zealots who give the rest a bad name by trying to discredit science.

Most Christians believe that the God they believe in created the universe and everything within it. However most don't care if it took 7 days or 7 billion years, some even think there might have been an evolutionary process in it as well.

At the end of the day it comes down to 2 fundamental questions.

Where did this all come from and what are we doing here?

Unfortunately no scientist will be able to answer this and your guess is as good as everyone else's.

sputnik

10-18-2007, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by 89coupe

But where did the word "God" originate from? Earliest record of course is the Bible.

The Bible was written by Man.

Mans stories in the Bible have been put to the test by science and in many cases been proved wrong.

So this begs the question, how credible is the Bible?

I think that is an easy question to answer. ;)

How did science disprove there is a God?

Janice

10-18-2007, 01:54 PM

Super_Geo

10-18-2007, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Janice

The 'idea' of a god/creator, which is moreso what I am referring to, has been around WAAAAAY before the bible.

Let me ask you this:

1) What do you think of Greek mythology as far as a credible belief system goes. (Apollo's chariot dragging the sun through the sky everyday, etc)

2) What makes any subsequent religion any more credible than Greek mythology?

I can't really see the difference between a true Christian and a true believer of Greek mythology.

89coupe

10-18-2007, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by sputnik

I don't know about that.

Many theories are taught in schools as if they are fact.

Really? Like what?

Janice

10-18-2007, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Super_Geo

Let me ask you this:

1) What do you think of Greek mythology as far as a credible belief system goes. (Apollo's chariot dragging the sun through the sky everyday, etc)

2) What makes any subsequent religion any more credible than Greek mythology?

Again, I am not referring to any organized religion, just the IDEA of god.

As said before, I personally think of organized religion as not providing any information about whether a god exists or not. To me organized religion has like a cult mentality where no real arguments are proposed for why you should follow it. The idea of selling Christianity door to door or at the bus stop is just ridiculous.

I don't follow any organized religious beliefs. I have my own set of rules of what kind of person I should be, regardless of what the bible says I should or should not do.

Supa Dexta

10-18-2007, 02:03 PM

Ok, so anyone who really believes in god, explain to me what he does for you, that you couldn't do on your own?

I firmly believe you can only trust in yourself, at the end of the day you're the one who steers you own life, and controls who you become and what you stand for..

:dunno:

Janice

10-18-2007, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Supa Dexta
Ok, so anyone who really believes in god, explain to me what he does for you, that you couldn't do on your own?

I firmly believe you can only trust in yourself, at the end of the day you're the one who steers you own life, and controls who you become and what you stand for..

:dunno:

Exactly!

liquid1010

10-18-2007, 02:07 PM

liquid1010

10-18-2007, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Super_Geo

I can't really see the difference between a true Christian and a true believer of Greek mythology.

Let me see... the Bible has stories of Jewish history that are just now for the first time (last 5 years) being proven correct through archeology. It was written by a multitude of authors over thousands of years, and in three (two primary) different languages, and yet it doesn't have any real contradictions.

lint

10-18-2007, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Janice

Quite right, my mistake. But then I might revise my opinion to mathematics and physics provide logical proofs, but theories such as the theory of evolution and the big bang are only theories and are not proofs. It isn't right to think of science as being the only way we can obtain knowledge, in my opinion.

You are correct, evolution and the big bang are theories as they have not yet been proven. However they are still valid as they also have not been disproven.

One fundamental difference between true science and christian "science" is that with true science you observe the world around you and then make hypotheses that fit your observations. Christian "science" seeks to find observations in the word that can fit the foregone conclusion of God's existence. This is not obtaining knowledge, this is spreading gospel.

sputnik

10-18-2007, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by lint

You are correct, evolution and the big bang are theories as they have not yet been proven. However they are still valid as they also have not been disproven.

One fundamental difference between true science and christian "science" is that with true science you observe the world around you and then make hypotheses that fit your observations. Christian "science" seeks to find observations in the word that can fit the foregone conclusion of God's existence. This is not obtaining knowledge, this is spreading gospel.

We have to be careful to separate the zealots from the masses.

Most followers of ANY religion do NOT support the notion that they are called to "scientifically prove" the existence of God. Also, most religions (Christianity included) do not support shoving your beliefs down the throats of others or ridiculing other people for their "lack of faith".

89coupe

10-18-2007, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by liquid1010

Ok, the amount of incorrect statements above is overwhelming!
Earliest record of the word "God" is in the Bible.... care to source that fact? I call your bluff!

The capitalized form "God" was first used in Ulfilas' Gothic translation of the New Testament, to represent the Greek Theos.

89coupe

10-18-2007, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by sputnik

We have to be careful to separate the zealots from the masses.

Most followers of ANY religion do NOT support the notion that they are called to "scientifically prove" the existence of God. Also, most religions (Christianity included) do not support shoving your beliefs down the throats of others or ridiculing other people for their "lack of faith".

I would rather believe in a scientific theory then a belief in a absolute unknown.

sputnik

10-18-2007, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by 89coupe

I would rather believe in a scientific theory then a belief in a absolute unknown.

Unfortunately the theories you believe in stand on several absolute unknowns.

The Cosworth

10-18-2007, 02:28 PM

I am not religious, I was and still have a cross with wings tattooed on my arm (I am still working on the cover-up)

There are many websites like this and the world consciousness is changing so as religion is becoming the outsider, just look at the southern US states.

Here are some of my favourite quotes:

"What was god doing before he created the world? was he preparing hell for people who asked such questions?" - St. Augustine of Hippo

"Only two things in the universe are infinite. Stupidity and the universe, and I'm not sure about the universe" -Albert Einstein

By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out. - Richard Dawkins

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence. - Richard Dawkins

I was never more closed minded and judgemental then I was when I was religious. I say good riddance.