God Doesn't Exist. [Archive]

U-238

03-20-2006, 1:17 PM

Let me point out the no. 1 inconsistency in Christian faith:
God is almighty, and sees that people sin, so he send down his son, and then kills him, in order to appeace himself so that the people can be saved.
Ehh... What is up with that?

Wrong. God sent down his son, his one and only son mind you, to live a perfect sinless life. So that, by dieing on the cross, all of our horrific sin would fall on him. In other words he has paid the price for all of our sins. Both past, present, and future. Thus we do not need to make sacrifices like the isrialites did to clense us of our iniquities because christ did that for us. And if you ask me there can be no greater gift or sing of the love of our allmighty father than that.

I don't believe God exsists for several reasons:
1) It's not possible to prove his exsistance - the Bible doesn't because it's just another book that has been written, transcribed, translated, mutilated by countless people.
2) God was invented to explain things that science can't to the layman. I beleive that given enough time, science can logically explain all natural phenomenon.

It is interesting to me that both of those questions, given that a person looks at them correctly, coincide. Thus the answers will coinside as well. The answer to the first question can be answered by what I said above however I am going to go into more detail in the second point. And hoopefully you will see the answer to your first point in the answer in the second. Science is a wonderful thing. It is one of my favorite classes in school however it is NOT perfect. Science has many flaws. Also there are many things that cannot currently and quite possibly can never be explained correctly without embraceing the word of God. Take human DNA for example. It is exceptionally complex. Complex enough as that no scientist of today can even begin to replicate any of it. Let alone all of its delicate intricacies. The way it is perfectly formed clearly cannot be explained by any natural phenomina and never by random chance. Only the hand of a superior being could have done this. The hand of God. If you'd like another example. Take the bats "sonar" system. It is the most efficiant sonar system out there. This is because bats tend to fly at night. They need to "see" things in the dark. The way they do this is with there sonar. Now many people tend to liken bats sonar to a submarines. The difference between a submarines sonar and a bats sonar,however, is that the bats sonar provides much more information than even the most complex sonar that we have today. First instead of providing just a few ultrasonic frequencies, like a submarine, the bat produces a very wide range of frequencies. This is because different matierials react differently to different frequencies of sound. Because of this, this allows the bat to determan what the object is what it is made of how big it is what direction it is moving how fast it is going etc etc. In other words it can, 100% of the time, distiguish a stick from a leaf simply by analyzing the frequency of the returned wave. And if thats isn't good enough. It does this with an efficencey that would make you head spin! It processes information faster that the fastest computer can nowadays. In fact it makes a 3.0 Ghz machine seem like it's a snail. This allows it to find identify and obsticals and insects so quickly that it can fly around those obsticals and still find track and eat up to 5 insects in a single second! And all of this is done in a sonar system that has a total mass of less than a gram. That makes the bats sonar millions of times more effective than any man made sonar will ever be. And you think science can explain, through millions of years of "evolution" that the bat, through random chance, could end up this way? I think not! Clearly such natural technilogical marvels that are sprikled throughout nature scream at the top of thier lungs that this was the design of the Lord our God. Creator of Hevan and earth who sent down his only beloved Son that he may die for us and our sins that we may live and be spared from his enternal wrath that we may live with Him in the eternal glory of Hevan.

Now I'm not going to be able to make up your mind for you and I will not force my opinion on you. I have just given some simple resons that I and hopefully many here on WBs beleive that God is the supream and His existance is for real. Now that you're down here thank you for reading my post and mabey this will help change your thinking a little bit.

Good Day.
U-238

EvilEggCracker

03-20-2006, 1:36 PM

Only the hand of a superior being could have done this

What about aliens? I personally find Aliens more likely to have created us than that off this big guy who lives way "up there in the sky".

If you think about it, chances are, the probability of Aliens creating us for some experiment or
something is far more likely than some God creating everything because "he can".

Sikawtic

03-20-2006, 1:41 PM

WL -- this thread has nothing pointing towards the possibility of God not existing... I should go make a thread declaring he does exist because you can't prove that cells only come from other cells... which is a basic principle of biology. But I ask you... if they can't be made.. where did the first cell come from?

See, random facts taken out of context don't prove anything.

Toucan

03-20-2006, 1:42 PM

What about aliens? I personally find Aliens more likely to have created us than that off this big guy who lives way "up there in the sky".

If you think about it, chances are, the probability of Aliens creating us for some experiment or
something is far more likely than some God creating everything because "he can".
Interesting theory, but where did the Aliens come from?, or who created the Aliens?
If it where the case it would be the same as asking where does God come from?
Speaking for myself, I am more agnostic, I have never seen anything in my life to convince me of God's existence, but I have never seen anything to convince me that he doesn't.

U-238

03-20-2006, 1:54 PM

Hmmm. I can't rremember where I heard this but if I remember correctly...

Some would say seeing is beleiveing. And some of the most realistic things in this universe of ours are the things that we cannot see.

FallenLord

03-20-2006, 1:58 PM

What about aliens? I personally find Aliens more likely to have created us than that off this big guy who lives way "up there in the sky".I wonder what the atheist scientific community would qualify as evidence of "alien intelligence."

...

Darklord:
Not sure why you think that's an "inconsistency."

God is perfectly just and loving. His justice demands that we perfectly obey his Law. Disobedience means death. Since we are incapable of doing this and because God is perfectly loving, he sent Christ to perfectly fulfill the Law and take our sins upon himself and pay for them (through death).

It's not God's fault that we disobey him. But his love compels him to save us.

And, btw., that is only scratching the surface of all the weird things that abound in popular Christianity. There are several other self-contradictory statements, as well.Try me. ;)

Prozerran

03-20-2006, 2:06 PM

This is kind of like a "thread for dummies" where neither side will really understand the problem of religion and science. Both sides have this relentless idealism toward truth, one based on spirituality and the other based on natural phenomena. The problem is, we can't really debate this point to any satisfactory end, because neither side has mutual ground with the other. Spirituality will not rely on concrete evidence anymore than science relies on supernatural, "faith-based" evidence. So, you must agree to disagree. This is certainly not the first thread to contain such a stupid argument over religion. Sadly, it won't be the last either.

Prozerran

03-20-2006, 4:22 PM

this thread is pointless and should be closed for redundant stupidity. This has been done so much that nothing new will really happen that much. I might jump in on the "You can neither prove nor disprove God with science." side, but I don't want to waste my time. Have fun in your arrogant quest to disprove that which cannot be disproved(or proved) WL.Let me also jump in here and comment that the idea of "proving" or "validating" is a scientific concept for "establishing the truth or existence" of something. The very notion of attempting to approach religion from a standpoint of logic is retarded. It's religion. There's nothing to measure or quantify in religion (unless you're counting the number of people that believe in that religion). There's really nothing to debate from a religious standpoint either. Let's face it, you have NO PROOF. You have FAITH.

So, please stop trying to "debate" this to the point of utter stupidity.

Weltall

03-20-2006, 5:00 PM

This thread does not suck. This is important. Who the fuck cares if it's been debated a thousand times? The people who are tired of it can leave the thread alone. The fact is, there are people who aren't tired of this. Thus, the thread should stay open. I don't give a shit if we don't talk "intelligent enough" or some shit like that. We're having fun and saying what we think. You guys should be able to say that you think this is dumb, but this thread should not be closed for the reasons I already stated.

If this whole thing is some kind of test to see whether we'll find the right answer, then the all-powerful being shouldn't give us the answers in some book obviously written by men. People shouldn't have an advantage just because they were born into a Christian family and were raised into those values. If anything the best way to do that would be to make us find those answers ourselves.

The flaws are endless.
ENDLESS

Anyone can make anything seem real with enough "exceptions" and "explanations".
It's odd that I can't think of any religion better suited to blindly convince people into following it than Christianity.

I'm going to play that bullshit game with anyone where they just make up answers to make things seem right. Maybe they didn't make the answers, but someone did.
Heaven and hell. Why can't we find many major religions that lack those two things? At least any decent religion?
It seems rather coincidental that heaven and hell just happened to end up in Christianity, the two best possible incentives to get people to join. May your enemies go to hell, and may you get the best possible shit after death.

There's no question that all of that shit isn't bullshit. All religions are. And anyone who believes them is.

There were so fucking many people who were believed to have done things like that. For all we know Jesus could've been three people who were just assumed to be the same person. There was a reason the Romans killed him. It was because he was a fucking liar. It's a shame they didn't end it with that.

Much of the same bs is still happening today. But better historical documentation and communication should put an end to that, permanently. It's only a matter of time.

Don't get me wrong. I don't have much against the bible because of what it has written in it. I just have something against the masses of morons who try to follow it yet fuck up and somehow do the exact opposite.
But why should I be surprised. It seems to be almost human nature to fuck up and do the exact opposite, to only see happiness through your own eyes.

I already have my own answer to the universe. It could be complete or it could not be complete. But it smacks this shit into the ground in 3 different ways. Ways which I am reluctant to state. I don't want to say them...

But I will say that even Christianity doesn't explain it. Just saying "at first there was God" isn't an explanation. And I know I misquoted.

But I'll move on to something else.

The flaws of the omnipotent God:
The truth is a God could make a stone too big that he couldn't lift it and big enough that he couldn't lift it either way if he wanted to.

But a truly all powerful God has everything it wants at that exact second. No, not even a second. Not even a moment in time. A truly all-powerful god has no limitations. He can feel everything he wants at once. Have everything he wants at once. Not even in a moment in time would he have to wait.

The truth is, an all-powerful god would be dead, because he would be dead the instant before he became omni-potent.

Once someone has everything they want, they have no reason to live. And is, therefore, none existent before it becomes omni-potent. An omni-potent being would have everything it wants, and wouldn't exist at any time during that omni-potency.

You guys shouldn't think you'll be rewared for following something out of faith. Out of all things to follow out of faith? Why would you follow some spoiled little bitch God who wants to be worshiped all the time? The fact that the bible has so many flaws should be enough evidence to persuade you to have faith in something else.

kongurous

03-20-2006, 5:19 PM

Anyone can make anything seem real with enough "exceptions" and "explanations".
It's odd that I can't think of any religion better suited to blindly convince people into following it than Christianity.

I didn't read further into your post than this. Perhaps you fail to realize... Christianity is Judaism, but with more things changed around and an extra holy being. Perhaps you fail to realize... Christianity and Islam go practically hand in hand. Perhaps you fail to realize... all three of them have it written in their holy books to go out and attempt to convert others. Yes, Christianity is bigger, but does that mean you can ignore the other religions similar, or virtually identical to it?

Weltall

03-20-2006, 5:23 PM

I know. I know. Gez. You can just assume when I say Christianity I mean similar religions, too. Who cares.
I don't think that was flaming really. I was just stating my opinions to get my point across, fully necessary.

BIGDB

03-20-2006, 6:00 PM

Mmmmk... Love ya kong, but I hate seeing people say that all religions are the same. Hell, I hate even seeing debates like this in an online forum... All it ever turns into is a bunch of quote wars, and no-one is ever really willing to change their opinion in order to learn the truth about what they are debating. I do enjoy this form of discussion in a real life situation, because people tend to be much more respectful, and a little bit more calm. :)

Anyway, back to the reason I'm posting!

Christianity in a nut-shell: God creates man because he wants someone to commune with. Man screws up, God sends savior, Man kills savior. Savior comes back from death, thusly defeating the whole system. And then in the future he comes a second time to finish the battle that Lucifer started back in the time that the book of Genisis was describing.

Judaism in a nut-shell: God creates man because he wants someone to commune with. Man screws up. God will eventually send a savior, but hasn't already.... But at the same time that he is the savior, he finishes the battle that Lucifer started back in the time that the book of Genisis was describing. <--- Major difference.

Islam in a nut-shell: Muhammad sits down and starts writing a book one day that turns into a religion... I could go on about it, but the main difference is the fact that there isn't any way to check that what Muhammad was saying was correct... Because the whole book was written by one man.

Egh... There are obviously going to be flaws in what I've said, because I'm not that great at hitting every single point that could ever possibly come up, ever. So...

Darklord

03-20-2006, 6:08 PM

Darklord:
Not sure why you think that's an "inconsistency."

God is perfectly just and loving. His justice demands that we perfectly obey his Law. Disobedience means death. Since we are incapable of doing this and because God is perfectly loving, he sent Christ to perfectly fulfill the Law and take our sins upon himself and pay for them (through death).

It's not God's fault that we disobey him. But his love compels him to save us.

Try me. ;)Yes, but if God is so great, why is he unable to forgive? And why would killing his own son help with that at all? As I see it, a better solution would have been to flash a few lightning bolts down from the sky, and tell the Sinners in a thundering, world-encompassing voice: "Hey, ya, well, you guys are really screwing up my planet down there so, yeah, I'd appreciate it if you kinda stopped sinning. If you wanna stop sinning but can't get your lazy behind up of that chair to do so, there are two options: Enroll in our Divine 10 Steps to a Sinless Life program. Or, y'know, go to Hell. Really your choice. Oh, and this message will be implanted in all newborn babies form now one, so the contract is blinding. Ok? See ya!"
The point is, no matter how you twist it, Jesus died as a sacrifice to appeace his dad, who is almighty enough that he shouldn't have needed appeacing. Unless you take the stance that he was here merely as an example, in which case the entire "Jesus died to save us" scheme gets flushed down the sink.
And why would the almighty God make a Law that was Impossible to Uphold? And, when he discovered it was, why did he still insist on upholding it, and then kill his own son in order to avoid having to actually enforce it?
(Btw., both answers I got were basically rewritings of this in order to sound better.)

Other inconsistencies? You got them:
I. If God is all-powerful, why does he have an enemy he can't beat?
II. If God is all-loving, why send people to Hell for eternity when they could rather spend a few millenia in civic duty to make up?
III. If God is that great, how can his son be mortal and have finite powers? (This one is easy to get around, though.)
IV. If God intended us to live free from sin, how come that is impossible by the very nature of matters? And if he just intended us to do as best as we can, how come we got divergent opinions?
V. Why would God give us free will, and then punish us for using it?
VI. "Thou shalt not kill, with following exceptions:
1) The person you kill is not Christian
2) The person you kill killed a member of your family or friends first
3) The person you kill is a woman who has either had $*x (Damn childblock!) outside of/before marriage or been raped
4) If it is an animal, in which case it is called a "sacrifice"
etc."

Please note that some of these inconsistencies are easily counteracted. I personally find no. I to be the best.

BIGDB

03-20-2006, 6:31 PM

By killing his son, he did enforce his own law. Just as God slew a sheep and covered Adam and Eve with it's skin (A picture of the "covering of the blood of Christ"), he slew Jesus.

This is the whole rule and reasoning behind Christ's death... Once again in short.
If someone sins, his punishment is eternal torment in hell. (Hell was created for Lucifer and the other Angelic fallen beings by the way, not for us.) But, if an innocent life (one who has NEVER sinned) is killed in the others stead, the sin is passed on to the one who died in the original sinners placed.

Now, with that in mind, of course a lamb has never sinned... It's an animal... It's also unwilling to die. That was why the Jews had to have their priests preform the same sacrifices every year. The sacrifice was sufficient, yes, but only for a time. Also, it is extremely important to note that the heart must be "in the right place" for any of this to be legit.

So, sheep are only so good, because they're sinless but also too stupid to understand what's going on. That's why Christ came, he was/is both sinless and capable of understanding the full meaning behind sacrifice that he was making. Christ prayed to God and asked that if it was at all possible, that he wouldn't have to go through with actually dying, because he knew everything that it entailed. That's why Christ's sacrifice is sufficient. Also, the fact that he defeated death in hell, came back from hell, and returned to earth as both spirit and body (Reference the rapture of the church for more on that...) helps a bit. ;)

I know someone else wanted to hear your other inconsistencies. So I'll let him/her answer those questions.

TinyDancer

03-20-2006, 6:55 PM

Islam in a nut-shell: Muhammad sits down and starts writing a book one day that turns into a religion... I could go on about it, but the main difference is the fact that there isn't any way to check that what Muhammad was saying was correct... Because the whole book was written by one man.

Egh... There are obviously going to be flaws in what I've said, because I'm not that great at hitting every single point that could ever possibly come up, ever. So...

You're not kidding.

Christian bibles and the Torah, which is included in the bible anyway, were also written by man. Several different men, and a woman or two, but still. The Koran has a lot of similarities to the Christian bible. According to Islam, Muhammad (Peace be upon him) didn't just sit down and write what he felt like it. It says he was inspired by God, Allah, and the angel Gabriel, the very same Gabriel who informed Mary that she was pregnant with Jesus. Muslims, like Jews, believe Jesus existed, he was just a prophet though, not the savior.

I think you're confusing Islam with Scientology.

Personally, I'm agnostic. I've been raised Catholic, and I was considered a goody-two-shoes in every Sunday School class I ever took. I can argue on and on what I've been taught, and why Catholicism is right. But I don't belive it. Christians wouldn't know the savior if it ran past them naked, with "child of God" painted on it's ass. A lot of what Jesus taught has been taught by other people, who have been thrown in jails and nuthouses. If Jesus was born today, almost no one would believe in him, and those who did would be considered nutty radicals.

I'm not big on blind faith. Until I see a valid reason to believe in a God who will condemn people to burn eternally unless we accept it's only son as our savior, I can't just shut my eyes and say it's true. I believe in energy manipulation because I've done it, and I've seen it done. I believe in the power of positive energy, because I've done it and I've seen it done. I don't believe in Heaven, Hell, or an all-forgiving God who condemns people to Hell. It doesn't make sense.

Oh, and how can Jesus die for anyone's sins? It says in the bible that no one shall die for the sin of another. Somewhere in Deuteronomy, I forget where. People like to argue that the Old Testament doesn't count, because Jesus came after it. Then why are we still taught the Ten Commandments? They're in Deuteronomy too.

BIGDB

03-20-2006, 7:09 PM

I think that the old testament still counts and is extremely important, because without it there wouldn't be any reason for Christ to come in the first place.

Also... What you said about the Qur'aan is exactly my point. One guy sat down by himself and supposedly was inspired by God, met with an angel... All of that mess. There isn't any other writing besides his own to back up what he wrote. It's stupidity, plain and simple.

The Torah and the Bible were written by several different people, as you said. Which gives the Bible much more validity than the Qur'aan, since there could be something in one portion of the Bible that doesn't work with another portion of the Bible.

And if you tell me there are things that contradict in the Bible... I'd like to see them, quoted within the context with which they were written. :D

Side Note: I'm not a big fan of the traditional "blind faith" either... I hate it when people believe something but have no real-life experience to back it up... Or just believe what everyone else tells them. I do, however, believe in having the faith in God that a child is supposed to have towards his/her father.

wa123

03-20-2006, 7:22 PM

Does ghost exist?

I think u can choose to believe the non-existence of god, as I'm.
But is not a good idea to say that god doesn't exist.
That is other ppl's believe, there must be some reason that so many ppl believe in.

Darklord

03-20-2006, 8:16 PM

[My original post was randomly deleted before I could post it. This is merely a summary:]

@ wa123: Ghost exists. Check under "Blizzard Gaming".

@ BIGDB: You rephrased my original post, nothing else. Like the two posters before you. There are still two options, and the grey zone in between: God killed his own son in order to appeace himself and/or some arbitrary construction he made, or Jesus was jsu ta symbol, and ergo didn't "die for our sins".

As for the "more authors" argument, what about the Talmud or Bhagavad Gita? Don't they deserve the same level of credibility? For that matter, that argument turns Superman into fact.

[PS: I'm not seeking to "diss" Christianity, merely to discuss its bases.
If I sound harsh, well, that's just me. I could write about My Little Pony and sound angry.]

Uuugggg

03-20-2006, 9:12 PM

... Take human DNA for example. It is exceptionally complex. Complex enough as that no scientist of today can even begin to replicate any of it. Let alone all of its delicate intricacies. The way it is perfectly formed clearly cannot be explained by any natural phenomina and never by random chance. Only the hand of a superior being could have done this. The hand of God.

Now explain how it makes sense that a fundamentally more complex being came first.

Wick3d

03-20-2006, 10:19 PM

I don't believe God exsists for several reasons:
1) It's not possible to prove his exsistance - the Bible doesn't because it's just another book that has been written, transcribed, translated, mutilated by countless people.
2) God was invented to explain things that science can't to the layman. I beleive that given enough time, science can logically explain all natural phenomenon.Heh, I like your bluntness. But just because you can't prove something exists doesn't mean it doesn't. I mean, I personally beleive in extra terrestrial life, but I can't prove it. That doesn't mean it's true, and it doesn't mean it's false. You're entitled to your opinion.

In response to your second assertion, there can be no respose. I don't know how or why or when God was, as you say, "invented". I can only know that I believe in his existance in my soul, and that is unchangalbe. I agree that one day science will explain many things, but I will see no reaons that God cannot cause these things to happen (as I do with evolution).

I'm not trying to argue one way or the other, part of my beleif is that everyone can believe what they want. Just throwing in my .02$

FallenLord

03-20-2006, 11:30 PM

The mantra that Christians have "blind faith" is no different than complimenting the emperor's clothes. It's been around so long that everyone seems to believe it. Last time I checked, the Bible is a real, physical book that has been, time and again, validated as historically accurate. My faith isn't blind.

Darklord:

He doesn't. :rolleyes:
Make up for what?
That's not a contradiction.
What are you talking about.
You probably believe there is a class of people whose only "sin" is deciding, by free will, that they don't want to be Christians. False. All of these people, by free will, have hated/lusted/lied/gossiped/etc. At the very least. The idea that there are "innocent" people out there whose only sin is choosing unbelief is nonsense.
Individuals do not have the authority to kill, ever. When an individual kills, it is called murder. Governments (that is, individuals acting with the authority of government) have the God-given authority to kill for the purposes of justice and war.
As I see it, a better solution... ...Enroll in our Divine 10 Steps to a Sinless Life program. Or, y'know, go to Hell.God a step ahead of you; he already knows that no one is seriously going to live a sinless life. That's why his solution is to deal with the problem himself, rather than expecting us to change.

And, when he discovered it was, why did he still insist on upholding it, and then kill his own son in order to avoid having to actually enforce it?He enforced it on his son in our place.

Yes, but if God is so great, why is he unable to forgive?Forgiving sins without payment is unjust. God forgives sins because they have been paid for.

...

TinyDancer:
I can argue on and on what I've been taught, and why Catholicism is right.

A lot of what Jesus taught...Heh, heh. And just what did Jesus teach? Love everyone, right?

or an all-forgiving God who condemns people to HellGod doesn't condemn anyone to Hell. If you reject his forgiveness for your sins, you condemn yourself.

It says in the bible that no one shall die for the sin of another. Somewhere in Deuteronomy, I forget whereIf I recall, in another thread, you suggested that lots of people take Bible passages (wildly) out of context. Don't be one of them.

People like to argue that the Old Testament doesn't count, because Jesus came after it.And they're wrong.

Weltall

03-20-2006, 11:53 PM

been, time and again, validated as historically accurate.
Like 2% of it.

ScottieIWU

03-21-2006, 12:06 AM

Honestly, FL, there is a difference between discussing your beliefs and preaching your beliefs.

Guess what side you're on.

And to all else, I'm kinda waiting for this thread to go into a direction I like before I discuss it. Right now it's really, really disjointed.

sweet8D

03-21-2006, 12:39 AM

I beleive that given enough time, science can logically explain all natural phenomenon

Ah, but what logically explains science, grasshopper?

ScottieIWU

03-21-2006, 12:43 AM

Ah, but what logically explains science, grasshopper?Logic. Science is the search for truth via a testable, verifiable means. There's no depth to science other than it predicts, tests and interprets.

frazz

03-21-2006, 1:24 AM

Ok, sorry for the spam earlier. But here's the deal, Evolution is a theory, I know what a theory is. Evolution is not a LAW. If it were a law, that would throw anything else out the window. But the existence of God is a theory(though some consider it a law). These theorys contradict one another. Therefore, since one is not a law, the other cannot be disproven or proven absolutely.
Which you choose to believe is called faith. I believe in God. You believe in evolution we both have faith.(so don't say "Well I have science and you have faith so shutup", I know someone is just itching to say it)
So if you believe in God, your faith is against most people's faith(in most developed nations anyway). If you believe in evolution, your faith is with mainstream science. Neither is a proven law. Both are theorys, one more accepted than the other. That's all there is to it.

ScottieIWU

03-21-2006, 2:36 AM

That's all there is to it.And if by "that's all there is to it, you mean that's definitely not all there is to it, then alright.

Frazz, you need to do us all a favor and CHECK YOUR FACTS before you post. Let me lay this down for you and if you read this all, you may learn something that is actually correct.

A law is a basic assumption of about a single action. Therefore, there is not just one law of motion, because each of Newton's laws describes a specific action in a concise manner. In science, the truth of laws is considered to be undisputed.

Now, where it gets sticky is hypothesis and theory. When you say that you have a theory that aliens are responsible for your socks that go missing in the dryer, you're being a fool. What you said would be considered a hypothesis in science.

To be more precise, in science a hypothesis is an educated prediction of something based upon observations. In a practical illustration, you notice that your car seems to be making a strange noise when you shift gears. You have observed the sound while shifting gears, and you may hypothesize that the transmission has a problem.

A theory, in science, is more akin to a scientific law than a scientific hypothesis. A theory is something that has at one point been a hypothesis but has been proven by much experimental data to be more likely true than not. Something being a scientific theory is somewhere between pretty sure and absolutely certain. Atomic theory is not something disputed, it has been shown to be true time and time again by experimentation.

Therefore, when you say god is a theory, you're being very wrong. The existence of God is (kind of) a hypothesis (not very scientific though.) Pop culture just sucks at life and has led people to the misconception that somehow because something is a scientific theory its not true. That's wrong, you're wrong.

Another common misconception that people make is that a scientific theory will be disproven by a single test that shows otherwise. This is not true at all, however. The fact is that if some random scientist does an experiment that (for example) disproves atomic theory the academy will not just throw their hands in the air and say "man we got this all wrong." No, scientists will repeat the experiment in the exact same conditions to ensure the same results. Most often when someone claims they've had a test contradictory to a theory the results cannot be replicated and thus the results will not be thrown out. However, if the results are replicated many times and are contrary to theory, the theory is either revamped or thrown out. I think that might be an important thing to point out, because people throw out some random creationists experiment against evolution as disproving it all.

Accepting science isn't faith. Science gives tangible results from its hypothesis, testing and observations. Accepting god is a belief because it is entirely spiritual and there is little to no tangible evidence of god. Everybody's experience with religion is different, nothing is verifiable, and so science is based on logic wheras religion is faith. Please note that I am not arguing the validity of either, I am simply pointing out that they are two differnet realms.

As much as I hate argument by analogy, in this case I feel it helps a little. My car is in good shape and everytime I get into my car I know that it will start up immediately upon turning the key. One would not call this faith that my car will start, it is knowing that it will. Why? Because I have observed in the past that every time I turn the key my car starts immediately.

Conversely, if my car were more of a beater that took a few turns of the key to start and it was very unreliable, one would say I would have to have faith in it starting, because observation has shown that it is unreliable and probalby will not start, but I believe that it will anyway.

So, you do not have faith in "mainstream science" (whatever the hell that is, because there's definitely a scientific subculture with scientific punks and emo kids and grunge scientists), you accept science and you have faith in god.

God is not a theory. Hypothesis. That is all there is to it. Wait, no, also:

LEARN THINGS.

Uuugggg

03-21-2006, 3:04 AM

Same as what Scottie says, and...

Which you choose to believe is called faith. I believe in God. You believe in evolution we both have faith.

Hold on. I neither believe nor have faith in anything. I only know things. I know evolution is valid. Also, I did not choose to have that knowledge. It was given to me, and now I know it. At some point, the thought of god was offered, and my previous knowledge rejected its possibility. I don't choose these things.

... How exactly did you come to believe these things, I ask?

Both are theories, one more accepted than the other. That's all there is to it.

Yes, exactly - except, one was the theory of some people thousands of years ago with some unknown force driving them to create it, and one is a scientific theory derived in modern times that accurately explains and predicts observable phenomenon.
There's even more to it, but I'm a concise person.

Wick3d

03-21-2006, 3:09 AM

Heh, I don't believe in any of the Gods discussed here. My God is one of light heartedness. If you're a cool dude, you're in. If you're a douche, you're out. I have friends who believe that only those who accept Jesus as their lord and saviour can get into heaven. I just can't wrap my mind around a God that wouldn't let Ghandi into heaven.

bluemicrobyte

03-21-2006, 4:07 AM

I'm tired of every thread in IR turning into this, so I might as well start it here.

I don't believe God exsists for several reasons:
1) It's not possible to prove his exsistance - the Bible doesn't because it's just another book that has been written, transcribed, translated, mutilated by countless people.
2) God was invented to explain things that science can't to the layman. I beleive that given enough time, science can logically explain all natural phenomenon.

Then here is my statement for you:

1) It's not possible to disprove his existance. Try it. I dare you.

2) Science was invented to explain what God and the bible left out or described in such a way that some humans were not satisfied with the answer.

Yoda

03-21-2006, 4:39 AM

Hold on. I neither believe nor have faith in anything. I only know things. I know evolution is valid. Also, I did not choose to have that knowledge. It was given to me, and now I know it. At some point, the thought of god was offered, and my previous knowledge rejected its possibility. I don't choose these things.

You know evolution is valid? It sounds more like you are trying to console yourself because you don't like the possibility of evolution not being true.

Yes, exactly - except, one was the theory of some people thousands of years ago with some unknown force driving them to create it,

Oh really? If someone was going to "invent" Christianity, would they say things like Blessed are the poor in spirit, It is easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than a rich person go to heaven or Do not exploit the poor/working classes or Do not demand interest if someone poorer than you borrows money from you? Presumably the rich upper class who could read and write would be the ones to do it, and if so, why would they include things like that? Wouldn't it be better for them to say "People with the most money on them when they die will get into heaven" or something like that?

and one is a scientific theory derived in modern times that accurately explains and predicts observable phenomenon.
There's even more to it, but I'm a concise person.

Thats the whole idea of the evolutionists argument. To state that their theory is "properly scientific", while Creation is "religious." Evolution is not properly scientific.

It was not derived in overly modern times either. If it was released today, nobody would believe it because they may test it properly. Doesn't it make a difference to you that Charles Darwin later took back his theory (of his own free will)? And before that said that his theory would break down if any part of the human body had an complexity that cannot be reduced? The human eye for instance?

Toucan

03-21-2006, 10:11 AM

Doesn't it make a difference to you that Charles Darwin later took back his theory (of his own free will)?
Well no, mainly because it is not true, you can find a few websites and sources saying that it is, how ever his own family members say it is not and they were present when he supposedly "Took back his theory" just before he died. In fact they go as far to say that it is nothing more than a fabrication created in an attempt to discredit the theory of evolution. I can't help but wonder why people would make up lies about some thing they claim is groundless and they have a worthy argument against.
Neo posted some thing about this a while a go, witch is what made me google about and have a read, why don't you do the same.

Tissue

03-21-2006, 11:36 AM

Bah...Charles Darwin taking back his theory is nothing but a creationalist theory. Why would he, when by the time he died it was pretty much a well established theory?

Blessed are the poor in spirit, It is easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than a rich person go to heaven

Really...doesn't this seem a bit of panderring to the great poor masses. Why would it be almost nigh impossible for a rich person to goto heaven. It seems like that qoute is an attempt to console the majority and attract a large power base.

Your example of the human eye being too complex to be reduced just belies your ignorance. The eye is actually one of the most studied organs in evolution because it apparentely defies it. However, it has been well explained time and time again of how it could have arisen. I would spare you the details but suffice to say, the eye has been independently evolved by seperate organism throughout the fossil record. There have also been many studies of other complex organs and how they may have evolved, such as the skin and ear.

The theory of evolution and natural selection is a modern theory. An non-modern theory would be one such as the Grecan atom or the five elements. When Charles Darwin was alive it was during the British Victorian which had the Scientific Method and idea set up. You do not truly think that all we see today was invented or discovered during the last 100 years or so? At Darwin's period of time, how nerves work and genes and photosynthesis has all been discovered and researched to a great depth. When the theory of eveolution was first publish there was a great uproar but in the end the idea prevailed against the religious mass.

The theory of evolution has already been greatly tested both mainly in the micro test. theres even a story of how a seperate species of mosquitos differentiated because they live in the London Tube (subway system).

One last thing Yoda...you may disbelieve in the idea of evolution because you do not like the possibilty that it is true and prefer to cop out by beleiving in a God to give you a sense of self worth.

ExplodeDOOM

03-21-2006, 11:48 AM

Pure curiosity...Why are you people debating over the Christo-Muslim-Judeic god? How about lookig at the Wiccan view (or at least one of them)? The Goddess and the God ARE the universe. Seems f-d up, but it is actually rather rational. I personaly am atheist, but this seems like the most rational theory, and completely compliant with science. In the universe, anything could happen, as far as we know. We were created by the universe, by random chance or not, doesnt matter. Therefore the universe itself could be the god we're searching for.

About the christianity etc.... God may exist or he may not. We have no way of proving or disproving it. That is called the concept of FAITH. As long as people believe he exists, he will, at least in their mind. Scientists believe gravity is a law, but they can't really prove that either. We live in a small part of an infinitaly large universe. We can only speak for a small part of it.

Continuing.....
If the christian god did exist, and I had definite proof, I still wouldnt worship him. I would rather go to hell, than believe in a god who's whole system is based on hypocracy.

Christians have Christianity
Jews have Judaism
Koreans have Starcraft

Tissue

03-21-2006, 11:56 AM

Personally I would rather talk about Buddhism as it is the more familiar religion for me that the above but for some reason Warboards seem to be rather fixated on christianity and catholicism. To tell the truth, Islamism has been barely mention in this topic and I never seen a topic contain Islamism to any degree. Maybe there is a certain lack of cultural diversity here as most people seem to be able to reel of bible qoutes of the top of their heads. These type of topics are a slight anaetha to me as it always seem to discuss the Christian God as opposed to any other.

ExplodeDOOM

03-21-2006, 12:16 PM

Yes, but Buddhism, at least the origional one, doesnt have a God in it. Buddha never portrayed himself as a god, that came later, when some people on drugs came and made a pantheon of gods...

Frattimonde

03-21-2006, 1:51 PM

Yes, but Buddhism, at least the origional one, doesnt have a God in it. Buddha never portrayed himself as a god, that came later, when some people on drugs came and made a pantheon of gods... Budhism does not deny god or his avatars, although while most buddists may seek to reach "nirvana" (non-exsistance) and break from the reinkarnation cycle, there are some whom still worship "god". Just a small side note...:)

As for the thread, it's getting a bit out of hand. In my opinion. Just a bit...

Uuugggg

03-21-2006, 3:28 PM

You know evolution is valid? It sounds more like you are trying to console yourself because you don't like the possibility of evolution not being true.
You believe in god? It sounds more like you are trying to console yourself because you don't like the possibility of god not existing.

Wise argument you make. Funny how it works just as well, if not better, on the other side.

Oh really? If someone was going to "invent" Christianity, would they say things like Blessed are the poor in spirit, It is easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than a rich person go to heaven or Do not exploit the poor/working classes or Do not demand interest if someone poorer than you borrows money from you? Presumably the rich upper class who could read and write would be the ones to do it, and if so, why would they include things like that? Wouldn't it be better for them to say "People with the most money on them when they die will get into heaven" or something like that?

Questions are not arguments. Would you like me to answer them anyway?

Evolution is not properly scientific.

Observation, model, prediction. Rinse and repeat. That's science. Guess how the theory of evolution was built.
Now, I would like to ask, what is the method behind the other 'theory' at question?

And before that said that his theory would break down if any part of the human body had an complexity that cannot be reduced?

Lo, and behold, the amazing thing we call science. Theories are not complete, absolute, indisputable fact. They make predictions, and if the observation doesn't fit, the theory is tweaked. I know the theory of evolution is valid, albeit not every specific detail is solidly true. If, say, some organism had such a complexity never seen before, then all the other substantial evidence around the entire world and in geological records, experiments, and everything else must have no credibility, right?

The human eye for instance...

Nice speculation! What exactly is your point, blatantly ignoring the most basic principles of evolution?

... and I do again bring my most common question that never gets a response:
How is it easier to believe something fundamentally more complex came first?

Duddits

03-21-2006, 6:56 PM

Whether there is a God or not, the concept of God has done marvalous things for people throughout history. God gives you the power to believe in something greater than yourself. God gives you the faith to believe that your life will matter.

At the same time, while the concept of God is pure, humanity twisted the idea with a forked tongue and put it to their own devilish uses: Spanish Inqusistion, the Crusades, Salam Witch Trial.

God is whatever you want God to be. Christian's God, Muslim's Allah, Jewish -Whatever-, God is only what you believe it to be.

Can science explain God? Me personally, I wouldn't want science too.

Protosschick99

03-21-2006, 7:44 PM

Ya know Duddits is right :P

God is what you make Him out to be. Who is He to you? Your provider? Your redeemer? Your comforter? Your healer? Your broken heart fixer-upper? :)

I know what my God is--He is my Everything :)

Ragnarox

03-21-2006, 8:01 PM

I say this as an athiest that it is impossible to disprove the existance of a 'god' because whether or not 'God Actual' exists, a god of some kind has been created merely through the advancement of human consciousness. In other words, humans created a god, many gods in fact over time.

I myself do not believe in 'God Actual' but I do recognize that a supernatural entity that millions around the world believe in has been created by those millions of worshipers.

Uuugggg

03-21-2006, 8:03 PM

And that's the problem with this sort of debate. One side is arguing universal fact, and the other is arguing personal belief. What sort of argument is that?...

QuothTheRaven

03-21-2006, 9:09 PM

you know you don't here anything about buddists going to war or anything.i'm not sure to believe in god or not here is why.i was hiking in the desert(arizona)in the middle of nowhere with my uncle.we stopped for the night made a fire,and when i woke up in the morning my boots which i left next to the fire with my socks in them burned up!i hiked about 23 miles on my bare feet carring 69 pounds of gear through sharp rocky ground,and i don't want to talk about the cactus.then i found a pair of boots next to a cactus standing strait up with socks in them AND THEY FITTED PERFECTLY!!!!wierd thing is there was no one around for another 120 miles.i will never become a church square though.(people who go to church every sunday also called god drones)

Wick3d

03-21-2006, 10:26 PM

I know what my God is--He is my Everything :)Well that's kinda whacky. I don't go around saying that God is my cheese sandwich at lunch or my bed coverings.

God's not my everything because I don't think God wants to be my everything. He'd rather be the cool dude up in the sky who chills and makes sure shit's alright.

Kazeofwinds

03-21-2006, 11:28 PM

I've never put a lot of stock into organized religion, seeing as most organized religions are simply curropt organizations created originally to control the ingonrant masses, and now, get their money(I'm starting a cult, anyone wanna join? Eternal happiness for all your worldly posessions). Honestly, what better way to keep someone in line than threaten them with eternal suffering/Damnation/misery, etc. as opposed to just death. (examples of the evils or organized religion: The crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem witch Trials, the current situation in teh middle east)

The debate over science and divinity seems to be a moot arguement to anyone but a literalist, the world was created in seven days, but who's to say what a day is before humanity was around to measure them. A day for an immortal being could be substantially longer than a day for a puny mortal. Think indirect creation, also known as the "god is a kid with a sandbox" explanation.

Personally, I find the idea of some all encompassing, sentient, greater being that is responsible for everything to be a bit absurd, if that being is the source of everything, where the hell did it come from, was it always there and just twiddiling its divine thumbs and playing solitare? Is time even linear, or is it just a giant cycle that would lead to all of events repeating themselves over the course of however many billions of billions of years.

I won't deny the existance of some form of uncomprehendable whatever having a role in the universe in some way, but if some form of divinity does indeed exist, its probably some kind of entity that current humanity couldn't even begin to fathom, or maybe its something far less complicated, the possibilites extend into some endless infinity that just result in a lot of headaches.

I personally like the ideas based around a universal life energy, a-la jedi-ism, buddism, and some more mostly eastern religion, some kind of almighty sentient being just seems way too damn unlikely to me.

In the end, its whatever the person believing it makes it to be, but honestly, I dislike it when people attribute everything in their lives to some kind of divine intervention or guidance(I'm strongly on the side of personal responsibility, everything can be chalked up to probability, assloads of environmental factors, and personal actions- IE: Either you're damn unlucky, or its your own damn fault).

I'm fine with religion for the most part, but complete blind faith just bugs me, probably because I don't like things I can't observe for myself.

Is there a god? I'll tell you when we're both dead, or you'll be too nonexistant to care.

Hopefully I haven't offened anyone too much or rambled on too long, but seeing as I just disagreed with everyone about everything, I'm sure some people will be pissed. And to the relgious nutters out there, I won't hold it against you(even if you guys make my skin crawl sometimes), that isn't my decision to make for you, I just ask you respect what I think as well, and not try and convert me.

All of humanity's problems have been caused because some group of asshole's can't handle people disagreeing.

Also, http://www.evilbible.com/ is great for a laugh.

FallenLord

03-21-2006, 11:49 PM

Subscribers to the Big Bang/Abiogenesis/Common Ancestor theories might make a few concessions.

These "theories" make no real predictions, reproduce no phenomena, and generate no experimental data to test their "predictions." What passes for "predictions" and "confirmation" is indistinguishable from the observations that led to the theories in the first place.

The significance of the term "scientific prediction" is cheapened each time it is applied to something other than a mathematical model. The Common Ancestor theory's "predictions" do not involve models. They simply predict they'll document more pre-existing data that is consistent with data they've already documented. They don't involve experiments, and they don't make any predictions about data that doesn't yet exist.

Perhaps we can move beyond the micro/macro-evolution sleight-of-hand which attempts to avoid commenting on the absolute centrality of mutations to the Common Ancestor theory. Nobody disagrees that natural selection, genetic drift, "evolution," breeding, and what-have-you occur; these are are all logical, scientifically documented phenomena. The problem is that the Common Ancestor theory requires new information/variety/traits/etc, which can only be solved through mutations. Yet documentation on mutations suggests that they, at best, accomplish "benefits" through loss of functionality.

However, it has been well explained time and time again of how it could have arisen.Fairy tales, you mean. Such as the fairy tale of the evolution of the bombardier beetle on TalkOrigins. Until there exists a mathematical simulation which describes the generation of the eye (or we scientifically document its evolution in real-time), these absolutely unfalsifiable "explanations" remain irrelevant, meaningless, and not-to-be-taken-seriously.

Honestly, FL, there is a difference between discussing your beliefs and preaching your beliefs.There's a difference between discussing Christianity and attacking it. With nonsense. I'm happy to educate people who are clueless about Christianity. But I agree, education is not discussion.

I would rather go to hell, than believe in a god who's whole system is based on hypocracy.Please substantiate this insulting bullshit. :rolleyes:

God is whatever you want God to be.The God of the Bible is actually defined by the Bible, and his nature isn't up for debate. I expect the same is true for the other major religions.

The debate over science and divinity seems to be a moot arguement to anyone but a literalist, the world was created in seven days, but who's to say what a day is before humanity was around to measure them.Let's not argue over whether the Bible teaches what the Bible teaches. Exodus 20:9-11

Also, http://www.evilbible.com/ is great for a laugh.It looks like they take themselves seriously.

Kazeofwinds

03-21-2006, 11:56 PM

The bible is a creation of man, reguardless of the truth/untruth of its content it was created by a fallable being and is thusly just as fallable.

sweet8D

03-21-2006, 11:57 PM

For one to prove that god does not exist by scientific means goes against the very foundation of religion.

REligion is built on faith which is to believe without definate proof. Whether that faith be foolhardy or not the world could use more of it.

mongoose41

03-22-2006, 4:06 AM

I'm tired of every thread in IR turning into this, so I might as well start it here.

I don't believe God exsists for several reasons:
1) It's not possible to prove his exsistance - the Bible doesn't because it's just another book that has been written, transcribed, translated, mutilated by countless people.
2) God was invented to explain things that science can't to the layman. I beleive that given enough time, science can logically explain all natural phenomenon.I shall pray that God have mercy on your misguided soul.

Yoda

03-22-2006, 4:21 AM

ExplodeDOOM

03-22-2006, 10:35 AM

Allah IS the christian god, but under a different name, so technically, half of you God-fearing freaks out there believe in Allah, although you do not neccessarialy follow Islam. The fact that the Christian god is mostly discussed, is because there are more christians than anyone else, sad as that may be.

Protosschick99

03-22-2006, 11:49 AM

Well that's kinda whacky. I don't go around saying that God is my cheese sandwich at lunch or my bed coverings.

God's not my everything because I don't think God wants to be my everything. He'd rather be the cool dude up in the sky who chills and makes sure ***'s alright.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, if my opinion is whacky to you, that's because it's not natural to you. I have a relationship with God, therefore, He is my everything :)

Allah IS the christian god, but under a different name, so technically, half of you God-fearing freaks out there believe in Allah, although you do not neccessarialy follow Islam. The fact that the Christian god is mostly discussed, is because there are more christians than anyone else, sad as that may be.

You know it's not nice to call ppl names because of what they believe in. You don't see me posting a bunch of stuff like, "Oh you athiest losers--Agnostic crack heads--Stupid Scientology ppl!!"

It's uncalled for.

FallenLord

03-22-2006, 11:54 AM

ExplodeDOOM:

First you claim Christianity is based on hypocrisy, then you claim the god of Islam is the God of Christianity? Back up this laughable nonsense so I can shoot it down, thanks.

ExplodeDOOM

03-22-2006, 2:22 PM

Well, I could do that...but I dont really have much time...I only go on for about 5 minuit sessions...when my parents arnt watching...
Well, if you know basic history, you would know that Muhammed saw the angel Gabriel etc... etc... Muslims believe that Moses was the first great prophet, Jesus was the second, and Muhammed was the third, and greatest of all...From the muslim point of view, Allah is the same as the Christian God.
BTW, all these arguments are useless...Believe whatever the hell you want to believe...I don't mind, as long as I can play Starcraft.
in response to protosschick99: God Fearing Freak is for those that take god fearing to the extreme (im talking about ultra-conservative christians that take the bible seriously word for word...). I am a Starcraft freak. Thats the only video game I play now, and I'm not even Korean...well, get the point anyway...

FallenLord

03-22-2006, 3:35 PM

BTW, all these arguments are useless...Believe whatever the hell you want to believe...I don't mindI have a good idea. Don't call something "hypocritical" and post nonsense about God being Allah unless you're going to support it.

First, no Biblical doctrine is "hypocritical." Second, God is a trinity of three persons. Allah is not. Therefore Allah is not the Christian God. Since muslims deny the triune nature of God and the divinity of Christ, they therefore do not believe that Allah is the same as the Christian God.

ExplodeDOOM

03-22-2006, 4:01 PM

Example of 'Hypocritical' (I'm not talking about doctorines, I'm talking about ACTIONS):
A long time ago: "Thout shall not kill"
During the crusades: "Let's kill those goddam Muslims!"

Tissue

03-22-2006, 4:08 PM

In response to your comment that the evolution of the eye is nothing more than a fairy tale and that these "explanations remain irrelevant, meaningless, and not-to-be-taken-seriously" here are some websites which seems to take it up seriously. You can read them if you like. I always hear argument about the eye is too complex so you may read the argument of how it may have evolved.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
http://www.karger.com/gazette/64/fernald/art_1_0.htm
http://www.embl.org/aboutus/news/press/2004/press28oct04.html

Just read them and see whether it is plausible. There is even a fossil record of this and even examples of eyes evolving independently (mammalian, insectoid and octopus eyes).

I suggest reading The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable. These are reknowned books supporting Evolution and are quite a good explaination of it.

Also the Big Bang is PURE mathematics. It just so happened to be proved experimentely later on. Anybody can come up with a theory, or hypothesis, but it is different when it has been proved experimentely. the fact that you can even say the big bang is non-mathematical in nature just beleis your total lack of knowledge in Physics.

Abiogenesis is in the realm of biology. Biology is not mathematical in nature. Biological theorems all involve calculations on the likelhood of the theorem being wrong. When it has been shown that it is unlikely that it is wrong (<0.5%) only then can the theorem can be accepted. Evolution is supported by the Fossil Record by the way. And please don't tell me the fossil record is a conspiracy planted by pro-evolutionists.

Actually it is pretty much basic knowledge that the Judean God and Christian God and Islamic God are supposed to be the same in their literature. The Koran says that the God of islam is the same God as the one in which the prophet Jesus claimes to be from. Please note that the Koran see Jesus as a prophet. From the Muslim Point of View the Christian God is the Muslim God. Of course Christians don't neccessarily see it from that point of view and of course Muslims don't believe in the Holy Trinity.

Neo

03-22-2006, 4:38 PM

Fallen why do you do that?

As far as most christians are concerned Allah is the same as God.

But then some say that Allah is some pagen Moon God or some such nonsense.

In the present, Allah and the Christian God are pretty much the same being.

The point, at least how I see it, is that Islam and Christianity aren't as different as people would like to think.

-Neo

ScottieIWU

03-22-2006, 7:39 PM

The point, at least how I see it, is that Islam and Christianity aren't as different as people would like to think.I don't think that's just how you see it. I've sat down with a couple of professors of religion at my school and they, as religious scholars, understand how similar Judaism, Christianity and Islam are.
And oh yes, besides the usual things about religion-related posts that make me laugh, I have to say it's funny that this thread degenerated into theists fighting amongst themselves.

Bravo. Maybe you should all stop preaching your (different) beliefs to each other and focus on the point of the post.

Prozerran

03-22-2006, 9:44 PM

The Existence of God cannot be Proven nor Denied

The shallow, pedantic debate of Religion against Science is a stone's throw away from arguably the most pointless and irrelevant controversy ever witnessed in all of history. Much like arguing apples and oranges, these two forefronts of human understanding clash in the most ridiculous ways. To debate the topic from either viewpoint lends nothing to the overall truth that either God is real and science is flawed, or God is a manifestation of the human condition and the fear of death. But from a standpoint of philosophical differences, it is possible to question the existence of God. While many who read this will never understand that this article has nothing to do with either religion or science, nor that it is not implying an argument for or against either truth, it should be clear that the tired, old argument of religion and science falls short in rational, critical thought.

Among the several factors that lend to the religion vs science discussion, the Bible plays a very insignificant role. Scientific evidence used to rationalize theoretical arguments is equally unnecessary. In short, any evidence we think we have in debating this topic lends nothing toward an answer since the fundamental factors of religion and science have no common point of departure. Philosophy, then, is really the playing field, and to get to the heart of the discussion, it is the idea of existence that provides a common ground for Religion and Science. At the heart of the debate between them is God, and that is where we will begin.

God must be defined to some extent, and relying on some common characteristics it can be agreed upon that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and beyond comprehension. To be any less is to be less than perfect, thus not defining God. Existence must also be considered. For purposes of understanding and clarity, we will simply rely on perception as a basis for establishing existence. That is to say while we cannot perceive every truth with our factory senses, we can deduce from what we know to reach understanding - a basis for existence based on perception. This type of reasoning from a dimensional abstraction is useful for identifying the way in which humanity can perceive and rationalize the existence of God, even if an immediate solution is not realized.

To explain this notion, let us assume that everything we understand to be tangible and real is in a plane of existence that we call X. In this category, we recognize mortality, the finite, and other such observable phenomena that can be agreed upon to be "real." To take this one step further, we must acknowledge all that can be deduced from real perception. We can identify immortality from observing mortality, infinity from the finite, and any other non-observable phenomena that can be rationalized from observing some part of the whole, and we can categorize these items in a plane of existence we will call non-X for any existence of phenomena deduced from real perception.

Thus, we have a framework for understanding our own perception of existence. If God exists, He exists as an entity that may be rationalized from real perception. It is agreeable that God cannot be reasoned to exist by observable phenomena alone. Otherwise, one might simply point at God and all would know that God exists. So, by realizing the principles of perception based on negation in identifying the existence of God, it is reasonable to assert his existence from the intangible non-X category.

Though, this is where we stumble, because for God to truly be "GOD" we cannot know his existence. If the objective were only to simply characterize abstract traits of God to reach a more complete understanding of His existence, then we may never really comprehend if it is the existence of God that we discover or if we simply define the existence of another being. The paradox is this: the essence of the existence of God disproves His existence. This begs the question of a third plane of perception of existence, but it is clear that this category negates itself as we cannot rationalize this plane to exist outside of our intangible plane of perception. This is not to say that we don't know of the existence of certain phenomena from a lack of tangible or intangible evidence - just to say that to truly acknowledge the existence of God negates his existence.

To reiterate, this contemplation does not assert either way whether God exists or if God is a manifestation of our own Human condition. The point is merely to show that God's existence is a matter of faith, just as the principles and practices of religion. Science cannot justify by any rationale that God does not exist, since no tangible, quantifiable evidence exists that may enhance our perception. In short, the debate is tiresome, old, and simply an exercise in futility - one that when all evidence is factored to the simplest of concepts leaves a void in understanding our own existence.

FallenLord

03-22-2006, 9:46 PM

Tissue:

Thanks for your reply.

The eye
The reason I lay such claims against these explanations is because I've already read all of the explanations. Perhaps other readers may find the links useful.

The question is not whether the explanations are plausible. Obviously, they would not be presented were they not plausible. A plausible explanation, however, is very different from a scientifically falsifiable hypothesis/theory.

It very clear that these explanations are not scientific or falsifiable in any possible sense. There is no way to test whether the explanation is correct. (Circumstantial tests may exist, but these are outside the rigorous procedures demanded by science.) We cannot go back in time and watch the study the evolution of the eye in the field. Nor can we perform a laboratory experiment to study the evolution of the eye. Nor can we simulate the evolution of the eye on computers. (Hopefully that'll change some day, however.)
These explanations are 'pretend' models, if that. They vaguely outline a possible procedure by which the eye may have evolved. They do not even go so far as to predict that the eye necessarily evolved in the manner they describe. And they most certainly do not make any predictions about what the eye will evolve into next. (As a real scientific model would be able to do.)
These two points illustrate my reasons for calling the explanations "fairy tales." They are feeble, apologetic, unconfident, indefinite, and incapable of predicting future evolutions. They are not scientifically rigorous in any sense of the word. They make a mockery of true scientific explanations.

Finally, these fairy tales are even more irritating as they were only invented to parry inconsistencies in the idea of positive, accumulated, mutation-driven genetic evolution.

The Big Bang
I would never say that the Big Bang isn't a math model - which is why I didn't. I did say, however, that it makes no real predictions and generates no experimental data. Which it doesn't.

Why? Because, by its very nature, the theory is concerned with a phenomena that occurred only one time in the history of the universe. As far as science is concerned, it's not going to happen again. Accordingly, it cannot make any predictions concerning experimentally generated data because we cannot run a Big Bang experiment to generate any data. Nor can we wait around for another Big Bang to study.

But the BB predicted CBR. That's nice, we would have discovered it either way. (Recall my comment about "predictions" that are indistinguishable from the initial observations.) We didn't predict CBR, run a lab experiment testing the Big Bang, and document that CBR was generated. And, these days, CBR seems to be hurting the BB more than helping it. To say nothing of quantized redshifts.

Your suggestion that the BB has been proven experimentally is pure wishful thinking. To prove a model experimentally you have to test the phenomena it describes in a lab, and its predictions have to be correct. I somehow doubt the former will ever happen.

Evolution is supported by the Fossil Record by the way. And please don't tell me the fossil record is a conspiracy planted by pro-evolutionists.The fossil record can be "explained" without using the Common Ancestor theory. But of course none of these theories actually involve reproducing an otherwise equivalent fossil record in the lab.

...

Example of 'Hypocritical' (I'm not talking about doctorines, I'm talking about ACTIONS)Funny, that's not what you said here:a god who's whole system is based on hypocracy."Whole system," eh? There will always be people who seek to pervert and tolerate perversions of religion. Such as trying to unify religions whose only similarities are grossly superficial. Fortunately the Bible isn't hypocritical, and it isn't going to change. So what are you going to judge - the Bible, or what people falsely say and do in the name of the Bible?

As far as most christians are concerned Allah is the same as God.Who are you going to believe, Christians or the Bible? You can't disconnect God the Father from the Triune God, stick him in another religion (even a 'similar' religion), change his nature, and act like he's the same God the Father.

The point, at least how I see it, is that Islam and Christianity aren't as different as people would like to think.I've attempted to explain Christianity to you in the past, Neo, and it seems to have gone in one ear and out the other. Islam, like all other non-Christian religions, says to follow the laws, be a good person, perform the rituals, and as long as you break even with your sins, God/Allah will let you into heaven. As such, Allah is neither perfectly just nor perfectly loving, unlike the Triune God. On the flip side, Christianity gives you a free ticked to heaven, paid for by Christ's following the law/being a good person/etc. in our stead.

I've sat down with a couple of professors of religion at my school and they, as religious scholars, understand how similar Judaism, Christianity and Islam are.And I've got thousands of professors/pastors behind me. See, I can out-credential your credentialism. :rolleyes:

And oh yes, besides the usual things about religion-related posts that make me laugh, I have to say it's funny that this thread degenerated into theists fighting amongst themselves.

Bravo. Maybe you should all stop preaching your (different) beliefs to each other and focus on the point of the post./salutes Scottie's intellectual high horse
(That's what you were looking for, right?)

ScottieIWU

03-22-2006, 10:34 PM

/salutes Scottie's intellectual high horse
(That's what you were looking for, right?)Not so much, it was more asking you to get off of your christian high horse and spend less time refuting the arguments of your fellow christians and focus on the actual topic of this debate.

Last I checked, the subject was "God Doesn't Exist" and not "FallenLord Tells People How to Worship God."

That said, you have actually started to wander back to the topic, and that makes for a more interesting read than your take on christianity.

Edit: While I was browsing other parts of your post I thought I'd respond to this:

Your suggestion that the BB has been proven experimentally is pure wishful thinking. To prove a model experimentally you have to test the phenomena it describes in a lab, and its predictions have to be correct. I somehow doubt the former will ever happen.The thing is, science doesn't say an experiment has to be done in a lab, that's a very common misconception about science. In fact, many forms of experimentation are used depending on the particular problem we wish to test, after all the whole universe can be the scientist's "lab."

FallenLord

03-22-2006, 11:40 PM

And what "fellow Christians" might you be referring to? :rolleyes:

If non-Christians feel the need to publicly "validate" their rejection of Christianity through the comparatively childish medium of off-the-cuff strawmen, how can I possibly resist the urge to correct them. Especially when Christianity is, in general, wildly misunderstood. Really now.

That said, you have actually started to wander back to the topic, and that makes for a more interesting read than your take on christianity.Spare me the rhetorical crap. :)

The thing is, science doesn't say an experiment has to be done in a lab, that's a very common misconception about science. In fact, many forms of experimentation are used depending on the particular problem we wish to test, after all the whole universe can be the scientist's "lab."The misconception is in the nature of an experiment, not in the nature of a lab. Scientific experiments must be performed in a controlled environment with as few unknown factors as possible; this is, of course, the purpose of a lab. One could arbitrarily argue that any such controlled environment is a "lab."

...

Anyway, pretty much all that needs to be said on the thread's topic was said in the first two lines of the second post.

Ubergopher

03-23-2006, 12:54 AM

Neo

03-23-2006, 5:22 AM

FL. Spare me.

Spare me your christian bull.

I am so tired of you turning threads into these pointless religious crap. Or trying to bring up evolution and shit in any thread that might remotely be linked.

The fact is that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are a lot more similar then most would like to admit. And I find that a great many who are part of one of them have this inability to even entertain the idea that they hold something in common with Muslims. Or vice-versa.

Feel free to bleieve what you wish FL, and even posting that. But so help me, STOP PREACHING. This is not the place for that.

-Neo

Darmago

03-23-2006, 7:05 PM

As I was just explained to in my psych class, most people who read this thread will not change their minds and just disagree with those who are against their point of views even if the other argument is more logical.

Second of all, you all are arguing as if debunking religion is debunking god itself... God is not defined by its worshippers. But for the most part, you all are using christian doctrine as means for proof...

"God is Dead" ~Neichtze

Now... I'm not going to bash on Neichtze in particular, he was a smart guy, and in context this quote might make more of a statement, but we cannot prove or disprove god's existance...(as mentioned previously) At all...

Let us assume there is a god for an instance, and let us assume this god is both omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Meaning it is everywhere, sees everything, and can do anything. Being omnipotent, means that at a whim it could destroy any known law of science. It could make gravity dissapear, because it would be all powerful. Therefor this god could probably not be defined by science, because it is above science. So because god has not been proven by a science, is a very silly reason to not beleive in god. To beleive god provable, or unprovable, by science, would be to beleive that god is at humanity's level, which, by all concepts of god, is wrong. Let us again assume that god is all powerful, and again come up with the rock paradox, that if god is all powerful could it make a rock that it couldnt lift. The answer is yes, it could. But at the same time, it would then be capable of lifting it. Although this may seem contradictory, both the rock paradox, and the explanation, if god were all powerful it would be above such paradoxes...

Science is a way of describing the world we have borrowed from our children.

Next situation, let us pretend that you have a box, you cannot move, open, or gain any other information on what is in the box. You know how large the box is, and you know that somthing might be in there, but from all your observations, you have gained little knowledge about what is in the box. What more is science to do?

Neichtze is dead ~ God

Please excuse my writing, I'm not good at puting my thoughts into coherent paragraphs and consequently jump all over the place.

ExplodeDOOM

03-23-2006, 7:20 PM

My Goddess, this isnt going anywhere. It is easier to thread a camel through the eye of a needle, than to change a stubborn human mind. ;)
well, all I have to say now is: Why god? Why do you people believe that the supreme being (if there is one) is male? Sexism again.....

kongurous

03-23-2006, 7:25 PM

well, all I have to say now is: Why god? Why do you people believe that the supreme being (if there is one) is male? Sexism again.....

The Bible refers to God as "He" and "the Father". Either God is male... or it's outdated language and the translators couldn't comphrehend a female creator.

Darmago

03-23-2006, 7:44 PM

Oh my, I sure hope I didnt put he anywhere in my post... I usually refer to god as It... because I see god as androgynous... but thats COMPLETELY off topic... so please keep to it...

if you would like to discuss the gender of god please make a different thread.

as to your first remark, didnt I say that anyways?

GenocideAlive

03-23-2006, 10:42 PM

Let us assume there is a god for an instance, and let us assume this god is both omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscientrom . Therefor this god could probably not be defined by science, because it is above science. So because god has not been proven by a science, is a very silly reason to not beleive in god.
This is 100% correct. However, since God isn't defined simply as omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, then the actual definitions represented in the Christian doctrine are open to others' criticism.

The Christian doctrine, as you have so eloquently proven with that Nietzsche quote, is often open to interpretation and its members' ultimate manipulation. This is also another qualm of non-Christians--that Christians don't limit themselves and their religious practices to what is written solely in the Bible. Additionally, the vast majority of Christians tend to vary wildly on what is supposedly the immuteable word of the Bible. For instance, some Christians don't believe in a "Hell". Clearly this Christian "God's" role has issues.

In your rank oversimplification of God, you do a nice job of pointing out no system of logic will ever trump the limits of the human imagination. However, you do a crap-job of making any case for an existance of any gods. Besides that insipid "God" quote that amounts to blasphemy.

Darmago

03-24-2006, 6:28 AM

The reason why I only had those three definers are those are the main things of most of the gods I know of...

If I were trying to disprove christianity's god, I would have done that specifically, but I was just aiming for the general concept of god.

GenocideAlive

03-24-2006, 11:25 AM

The reason why I only had those three definers are those are the main things of most of the gods I know of...
I know of very few gods that are omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. You're more than welcome to give examples.
If I were trying to disprove christianity's god, I would have done that specifically, but I was just aiming for the general concept of god.
Your generalization failed, specifically because you only mentioned the Christian God and your generalization only described a very select few "gods" beyond the Christian God.

FallenLord

03-24-2006, 2:11 PM

To overlook the fact that words and paragraphs and books have objective meanings ultimately does a disservice to intellectualism. However, I sympathize with atheists who get stuck at Christian doctrinal disunity.

The Triune God is not omnipotent, anyway, since he (for example) can't love sin.

Tissue

03-24-2006, 2:35 PM

Here comes GenocideAlive purely just to flame and attack someone's post without actually discussing the topic. It is generally agreed that the Jewish G*d and the Christian God as being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, hence the many sayings trying to contradict it such as the old, creating a rock so heavy that noone can lift.

Blasphemy only counts as blasphemy when you are actually of that religion or you happen to be surrounded by lots of people of that religion. Like medeival Europe.

would never say that the Big Bang isn't a math model - which is why I didn't. I did say, however, that it makes no real predictions and generates no experimental data. Which it doesn't.

Why? Because, by its very nature, the theory is concerned with a phenomena that occurred only one time in the history of the universe. As far as science is concerned, it's not going to happen again. Accordingly, it cannot make any predictions concerning experimentally generated data because we cannot run a Big Bang experiment to generate any data. Nor can we wait around for another Big Bang to study.

But the BB predicted CBR. That's nice, we would have discovered it either way. (Recall my comment about "predictions" that are indistinguishable from the initial observations.) We didn't predict CBR, run a lab experiment testing the Big Bang, and document that CBR was generated.

Yet again you show your lack of knowledge about physics or in this case, cosmology. The cosmic background radiation wasn’t the part of the initial observation which lead to the theory of The Big Bang. Rather it was the theory of the Big Bang which predicted the discovery of the cosmic background radiation. CBR was discovered purely by accident and was recognized for what it is because of an existent theory otherwise it would had been dismissed as an experimental error. That is why the Big Bang is such a believable theory just like the Einstein’s theory of space time…it made predictions which could be observed.

Also the Big Bang makes predictions about the future. Clearly you haven’t heard about Friedmann density, (density = 3H2/8piG) where if the density of matter in space is under than this an open universe will open an will expand at ever increasing rates, if it is equal a critical universe will be reached where in principle the universe will be open and just enough energy from the big bang will overcome gravity to stop expansion at infinite time, in between is a value for a flat constant expansion universe and lastly for above this value, the universe will be closed, causing a big crunch. Thus from this we are living in one of 4 possible universes.

Please in the future don’t spout crap about physics and especially cosmology in particular; it makes me pissed off. If you want to see how upset go look under black holes. I really cannot stand it when people attempt to spread their ignorance because of what they learnt when they are or was 15 and under and assume that is the end of physics as we know it.(eg light). Sorry to bring this up but I can't stand the lack of cosmological knowledge displayed.

GenocideAlive

03-24-2006, 3:17 PM

Here comes GenocideAlive purely just to flame and attack someone's post without actually discussing the topic. It is generally agreed that the Jewish G*d and the Christian God as being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent
Wow. This is very relevant, because you can see that I clearly disagreed. Way to discuss the topic and and avoid flames, numbnuts.
Blasphemy only counts as blasphemy when you are actually of that religion or you happen to be surrounded by lots of people of that religion. Like medeival Europe.
Oh, man. I guess you really showed me, huh? Well, I went to this book called the dictionary, in which words are defined according to society, and not your crackhead arbitrary made-up bullshitisms.
1.A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.
2. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.
3. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct
DING DING DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!

FallenLord

03-24-2006, 3:46 PM

ScottieIWU

03-24-2006, 5:47 PM

Science documents data that already exists. Science predicts data that doesn't exist, not data that exists but hasn't been discovered. (It discovers and documents it.) Documented data is otherwise known as an observation. Making a few observations, stopping, and then predicting what you'll observe next is not particularly meaningful for the obvious reason that you might as well have just continued making observations. Whether or not your prediction is accurate is absolutely irrelevant, since your goal is to document.More circles and nonsense from FL. Let's all applaud him for consistently coming up with new bullshit to spew. Awesome.

Science documents data that already exists. Science predicts data that doesn't exist, not data that exists but hasn't been discovered. (It discovers and documents it.)That's gold, right there. It makes so much sense now, I think I'll convert to god. Oh wait, because data that exists but hasn't been discovered exists? If it hasn't been discovered it is unknown, and thus does not exist to science. It is then the job of scientific inquiry to find this data, discover it and document it.

And do you want to honestly tell me that if I make observations and then come up with a hypothesis that can direct me toward new observations that I would not have made if I had not known where to look I'm not engaging in the scientific method? The fact is that by predicting the second observation I'm engaging in an experiment, and the outcome could be one of many things, including (but not limited to): I predict something to happen and observe it as it happens (hypothesis validated), I predict but observations do not back my predictions (invalid, rework), or one of the many in-between phases where I could have part right. That sounds like an experiment, and moreover the scientific method.

Observations that lead to a prediction of other observations that would not have been found otherwise is one of the main means of discovery in astrophysics in general. Would you like the entire field of astrophysics to yield to your mighty intellect and admit that everything they've done is scientifically worthless because their goal is to document? Because I could arrange for it if your ego so desires.

Kopaka

03-24-2006, 6:12 PM

Isn't most of the science data a theory?? And can't theories be altered???

ScottieIWU

03-24-2006, 6:14 PM

And can't theories be altered???Yes, it happens. If a piece of contradictory evidence is found, often a theory is changed to adapt itself to this evidence (however only after that piece of evidence is heavily validated.) Science isn't static.

Kopaka

03-24-2006, 6:21 PM

Hmm, interesting. I think I'll stay out of this one.

ExplodeDOOM

03-24-2006, 7:56 PM

GenocideAlive

03-24-2006, 8:25 PM

Isn't most of the science data a theory?? And can't theories be altered???
I think you have a gross misunderstanding of what "Theory" means in the scientific context.

WeekendLazyness

03-24-2006, 8:32 PM

Sorry, I haven't been able to be on WB for awhile, so I'd like to reply to some of the posts I've read:

Then here is my statement for you:

1) It's not possible to disprove his existance. Try it. I dare you.

2) Science was invented to explain what God and the bible left out or described in such a way that some humans were not satisfied with the answer.
1) That doesn't mean he exsists, though.
2) If God and the Bible are perfect, why did they leave stuff out?

Pure curiosity...Why are you people debating over the Christo-Muslim-Judeic god?
Most of the people who feel the need to preach their religious beliefs to everyone typically fall under this category.

And that's the problem with this sort of debate. One side is arguing universal fact, and the other is arguing personal belief. What sort of argument is that?...
The reason I brought it up was to make a thread for the people who feel the need to bring personal beliefs into arguments about universal fact.

you know you don't here anything about buddists going to war or anything.i'm not sure to believe in god or not here is why.i was hiking in the desert(arizona)in the middle of nowhere with my uncle.we stopped for the night made a fire,and when i woke up in the morning my boots which i left next to the fire with my socks in them burned up!i hiked about 23 miles on my bare feet carring 69 pounds of gear through sharp rocky ground,and i don't want to talk about the cactus.then i found a pair of boots next to a cactus standing strait up with socks in them AND THEY FITTED PERFECTLY!!!!wierd thing is there was no one around for another 120 miles.i will never become a church square though.(people who go to church every sunday also called god drones)
Amazing! Truly Amazing! What does it prove, though?

Fairy tales, you mean. Such as the fairy tale of the evolution of the bombardier beetle on TalkOrigins. Until there exists a mathematical simulation which describes the generation of the eye (or we scientifically document its evolution in real-time), these absolutely unfalsifiable "explanations" remain irrelevant, meaningless, and not-to-be-taken-seriously.
And why not? How can you call the theory of evolution of the eye a fairy tale when you yourself subscribe to the stories of the Bible?

I shall pray that God have mercy on your misguided soul.
I find it humourous that you think you need to take the time.

It very clear that these explanations are not scientific or falsifiable in any possible sense. There is no way to test whether the explanation is correct. (Circumstantial tests may exist, but these are outside the rigorous procedures demanded by science.) We cannot go back in time and watch the study the evolution of the eye in the field. Nor can we perform a laboratory experiment to study the evolution of the eye. Nor can we simulate the evolution of the eye on computers. (Hopefully that'll change some day, however.)
Just because you can't think of a way doesn't mean there isn't one.

These explanations are 'pretend' models, if that. They vaguely outline a possible procedure by which the eye may have evolved. They do not even go so far as to predict that the eye necessarily evolved in the manner they describe. And they most certainly do not make any predictions about what the eye will evolve into next. (As a real scientific model would be able to do.)
Not necessarily. Evolution can predict what an organism will evolve into next given the conditions this organism is subjected to. It is these conditions that are hard to predict in the wild.

Why? Because, by its very nature, the theory is concerned with a phenomena that occurred only one time in the history of the universe. As far as science is concerned, it's not going to happen again. Accordingly, it cannot make any predictions concerning experimentally generated data because we cannot run a Big Bang experiment to generate any data. Nor can we wait around for another Big Bang to study.
And yet you believe in the stories of the Bible, which are of course unreproducable themselves. Your statements are some of the reasons that we cannot validate the stories of Jesus, Creation of the Earth, etc.

If non-Christians feel the need to publicly "validate" their rejection of Christianity through the comparatively childish medium of off-the-cuff strawmen, how can I possibly resist the urge to correct them. Especially when Christianity is, in general, wildly misunderstood. Really now.
This thread is about people giving their reasons for either believing or not believing in God, not about you "correcting" everyone on their misconceptions of Christianity.

Anyway, pretty much all that needs to be said on the thread's topic was said in the first two lines of the second post.
Good luck using [the Bible] to "explain" irreproducible [fairy tales] that occurred [2000-5000] years ago.
I hardly see how it's a reputable source.

Valjean

03-24-2006, 8:35 PM

<big huge sigh>
It's useless, yall keep on arguing anyway....
But....
All I can say is that science is at least INTERESTING. Science Changes or gets added to every day. You've had the same Jesus Christ for the past 2000 years...

If you don't think religion (even just Christianity) has evolved over the past 2000 years (or since Christ's Crucifixion), then you obviously haven't looked into religion that much.

Like, at all.

FallenLord

03-24-2006, 10:39 PM

Scottie:

Experiments reproduce phenomena and, more importantly, demonstrate model variables.

You seem to have skirted around the fact that the predictions of scientific models, as they relate to experiments and the reproduction of phenomena, cannot be divorced from the concurrent manipulation of the phenomena and model variables and a comparison of the model's prediction to the actual result.

Perhaps you will agree that such experimentation ought to be demanded of a scientific theory.

Not all scientific disciplines are necessarily capable of experimentally reproducing the phenomena they attempt to model. Without the ability to reproduce the phenomena which led to the observations which led to the model, what is the Big Bang (among others) besides a scientific hypothesis.

The value of continually revising a hypothesis as more non-experimental data is gathered is obvious. But if no phenomena are reproduced and, accordingly, no variables are tested, it seems clear that the meanings of "experiment" and "predict" become deluded. Perhaps you will agree that calling multiple rounds of observations an "experiment" makes a mockery of the term. Perhaps you will agree that inflexible model predictions limited to a comparison against pre-existing data resulting from irreproducible phenomena are less meaningful than the predictions of branches of science which are capable of experimentally reproducing modeled phenomena.

I find it mildly irritating that, far from exercising a little intelligence and good-will to understand my point, you decided to edify us with your frustrations.

...

WL:
I agree with evolution. Please recognize that evolution can be separated from both the Common Ancestor model and the beneficial mutations model. The reverse is naturally untrue. (The Common Ancestor model requires both.)
You have it all wrong. If scientists accept fairy tales, how can they object to using the Bible as a science book?
I thought of three ways to test the eye fairy tales. And listed them.
If people choose to specify their rejection of God to a rejection of Christianity, they can rationalize their actions without the use of strawmen.

ExplodeDOOM

03-25-2006, 11:20 AM

No, religion has changed much overall, but not as much as science. Science has changed more in 200 years, than christianity in 2000. Well, actually, christianity did change much, at first, when the papacy arrived, and screwed over everything and started pretending that Jesus was to divine to be human, but since then....conservative...conservative....conservativ e...

FallenLord

03-25-2006, 2:55 PM

Scottie:

In case there are any more shenanigans concerning "experimental" data and "existing-yet-undiscovered" data, consider an example.
A scientist comes across a crater accompanied by a spread of debris. He makes observations, hypothesizes that a bomb went off, and is lead by this hypothesis to make more observations which are consistent with his hypothesis. He further hypothesizes that the bomb was atomic in nature and makes observations with respect to radiation, which confirm this hypothesis.
He then performs an experiment by setting off several nuclear bombs and documenting their effects. The results of the experiment are consistent with the observations from the original phenomena. This is the limit of the scientific method.
All of the potential observations produced by the original phenomena (the nuclear bomb) are sitting out there waiting to be discovered. They exist, yet are undiscovered. Some of these potential observations may be more "obvious" or more easy to document than others, such as the crater. These initial observations lead to hypotheses which may lead to the discovery of less obvious data, such as the radiation.
But what if one's initial observations were simply 100% thorough; if one observed all the effects of the phenomena in question? No intermediary hypotheses would be necessary and no predictions concerning the discovery of pre-existing data would be made. But one ends up with the same hypothesis either way. It is nonsense to pretend that one procedure produces a more "weighty" hypothesis simply because the extent of its initial observations are limited.

Experimentation, on the other hand, reproduces phenomena in an attempt to create new data which is consistent with the original data. The keyword is reproduction. Repeating a phenomena (experimentally) creates new data. The model will predict what this new data will be.

If you cannot reproduce a phenomena, you are stuck with observing the data produced when it originally occurred. And it's a fact that all the potential data is already out there, waiting to be discovered. (The only way to get new data is to reproduce the phenomena.) Thus you get no magic brownie points because your observational capabilities are limited. (However, hypotheses are obviously necessary to direct limited observational resources.)
Now consider the case where our scientist doesn't jump to the conclusion that the bomb was nuclear; he assumes the radiation was caused by something else. So he runs experiments using conventional explosives. This is an intermediary hypothesis. His experimental results are inconsistent with the original observations so he then changes his hypothesis and tests nuclear bombs.
Notice the difference between hypotheses connected to experimentation (the reproduction of phenomena) and hypotheses connected to limited observations. In the former case, the scientist is dealing with predictions concerning experimentally generated data. In the latter, the scientist is predicting the existence of data that he would already know about where his observations capabilities less constrained.

If one's initial observations are thorough, there is no need to guide further observations with the predictions of a hypothesis - one skips the evolution procedure and goes straight to the correct hypothesis. At which point one begins to experimentally reproduce the phenomena, manipulate variables, and predict the results using the hypothesis (model).

Perhaps you disagree that raising a hypothesis concerning irreproducible phenomena to the level of theories and laws which have been verified through experimental reproduction cheapens the significance of those theories and laws.