Does God Exist?

[RidleyRockets]

Could you clarify?
Also, Krynn: The same could be said about science. When one theory is disproved another simply takes it's place, with no guarantee that it will not be disproved.

Which is surprisingly exactly why science works so well.

 

[Krynn72]

Also, Krynn: The same could be said about science. When one theory is disproved another simply takes it's place, with no guarantee that it will not be disproved.

That not the same thing at all. One is evolving, new and more evidenced theories replacing older ones, whereas god is the same explanation filling every single gap in knowledge and then claiming it as the only answer.

 

[Higlac]

True enough, but my main point was that both science and religion are based on unproven assumptions. Science provides much insight into how the universe works, but only if the original postulates remain unbroken. Modern religious simply have a more flexible way of thinking that provides an answer if said postulates are false.

Edit: My reply was for ridley.

Like I said, I am not arguing for all religions, simply the one that I have the most knowledge of. Modern Catholic teachings do not contradict science, they simply offer an explanation for what science cannot or has not proven. God is not the only answer, simply the final one. By final I mean that science will never be able to explain the universe in full. God is simply an unproven theory, explaining what science cannot, and changing as new evidence is shown.

It is one of those unproven postulates. Some people think that it's just silly though and refuse to acknowledge its potential validity.

 

[Polaris]

But, from my point of view anyway, if you think that they have pretty much proved the Big Bang took place, then that begs the question, who made the gasses and the spark?

Gasses and the spark? What? Who made them? Are words like "who" and "made" really necessary?

Until either science or religion finds definitive evidence, then I believe that there will always be struggle between these two facets of life.

Religion doesn't care about evidence even when science have plenty of it.

 

[Acepilotf14]

I watched this Evangelist video my mother got for free when she took my little brother to some shitty fake-dinosaur bones place. It was the most rage-filled thing I'd ever seen, particularly since I could tell they were being completely serious.

tl;dr, claiming dinosaurs existed 6000 years ago because of some very vague verse in Genesis. Also trying to refute scientific evidence, using ancient myths(dragons and some paintings in italian islands) as evidence for said dinosaurs, and saying they COULD STILL EXIST TODAY. WE HAVEN'T PROVED THEY DON'T STILL EXIST! Also taking the creation story VERY VERY LITERALLY. And the Earth is 6000 years old thing.

Honestly? Honestly. I don't know how anyone can be so ignorant in modern-day times. It's like that whole scientific revolution portion of history was pointless if such people can still exist.

 

[Higlac]

Which is why I hate fundamentalists.

 

[Krynn72]

God is simply an unproven theory, explaining what science cannot, and changing as new evidence is shown.

It seems completely unhelpful to create an explanation to fill every gap just because we can't explain something. Science is not the same in that regard, because the theories we come up with are based on observation of the universe and are, in large part (though not solely) on quantifiable evidence. God is nothing more than a human construct with no basis in existence.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

True enough, but my main point was that both science and religion are based on unproven assumptions.

True, to an extent, but the difference is that science is based on the unproven assumption that seems correct based on available data, requiring reasoned thinking, religion is based on the unproven assumption that 'feels good', requiring faith. Not the same thing.

Modern religious simply have a more flexible way of thinking that provides an answer if said postulates are false.

Really? I've largely found the exact opposite is true. "God did it." chanted over and over again is not being flexible.

You cannot have reason without faith

If by faith you mean belief in a supernatural divinity of some variety or expression, then yes you can.

 

[theotherguy]

It doesn't have to be an invisible man. Think about it. If we find out how to make a higgs boson, then we, too may hold the key to the universe, and indeed creating a universe. Maybe we are just the work of scientists in another universe who have too discovered the higgs boson.
However, this is just a theory, and there are many of them.

This again, begs the question. If scientists and engineers from another universe created us, then what created them?

I'm much more open to the idea of our universe being a simulation or an artificial creation than the universe being created by supernatural deities, but both are absurd, and both explanations beg the question.

If you want to take a truly scientific attitude, you must take into account the null hypothesis, ie "I don't know." We do not know what caused the big bang, or even if it did have a cause at all. There is not yet sufficient data. That doesn't mean that it could have been anything. That doesn't mean that we can speculate freely and that all of our speculations are equally plausible or valid. It simply means that nobody can yet answer the question, so we must, if we are to be rational beings, default to the null hypothesis.

 

[RidleyRockets]

Like I said, I am not arguing for all religions, simply the one that I have the most knowledge of. Modern Catholic teachings do not contradict science,

A Jewish zombie wizard who was his own father doesn't in any way contradict science?

they simply offer an explanation for what science cannot or has not proven.

They offer a retarded none explanation by saying it was all the will of a magic man then wonder why it isn't taken seriously.

God is not the only answer, simply the final one. By final I mean that science will never be able to explain the universe in full.

It's done a fine job so far and it is the best method there is of explaining the world around us.

God is simply an unproven theory, explaining what science cannot, and changing as new evidence is shown.

No, god retreats as new evidence comes forward.

That's why he is no longer carrying the sun across the sky in his chariot, making thunder with his hammer or showing his displeasure with erupting volcanoes.

Again religion doesn't explain things science cannot because making shit up isn't an explanation.

It is one of those unproven postulates. Some people think that it's just silly though and refuse to acknowledge its potential validity.

That's because it is silly. It's a silly unproven postulate like unicorns, fairies and leprechauns.

 

[theotherguy]

True enough, but my main point was that both science and religion are based on unproven assumptions. Science provides much insight into how the universe works, but only if the original postulates remain unbroken.

Science does not do proof. Only mathematics and philosophy do proof. You cannot prove something true in science, you can only provide explanations which fit the given data and which can make predictions.

The scientific method does not endeavor to seek the truth. Science is a tool for better understanding the universe. The whole point of science is to make predictions and test them. It self modifies to give a clearer and clearer picture of how the universe works. It makes models of the universe whose validity is based on their predictive power.

But science does make some assumptions about the universe. One such assumption is that the problem of induction is not a real problem, and that the past will resemble the future, and that our observations correspond to the way the universe will behave. However, one can practice science even without this assumption -- its just that your theories would not be very useful.

Science does not make any assumptions regarding supernatural events or any of the like. Supernatural hypotheses are treated like all other hypotheses. In order for them to be taken seriously, they must make predictions, and the predictions must hold true. They must take into account all available observations and evidence, and they must explain them. The reason science doesn't have any canonical supernatural explanations is because these explanations simply have no predictive power, and have no evidence to support them. However, if someone came up with a hypothesis for explaining the universe which relied on a supernatural being, and this hypothesis could be used to make predictions which were true, science would gladly accept it.

Let's take for example the claims of Christians that prayer can affect the world. This is in fact a hypothesis. The form of this hypothesis is "If one prays for X, then X will occur more often than if one did not pray for X." This hypothesis could be tested via an experiment, and if X occurred more often if it was prayed for, and less often if it was not, the prayer hypothesis would hold water and would be incorporated into the scientific knowledge about the world. Very many such studies have been done, showing that the prayer hypothesis has no predictive power, and it is therefore thrown out until more evidence supporting it can be presented.

Modern religious simply have a more flexible way of thinking that provides an answer if said postulates are false.

Nonsense, if the "postulates of science" were false, then science wouldn't use them. If it was discovered that the inductive problem is a real problem, or if the existence of the universe is subjective, or one of those other ridiculous things, science would incorporate it. Science is extremely flexible and extremely resilient.

Religions, on the other hand, are based on far more absurd claims, like "There is an all-powerful being who controls the universe" or "There is a spirit energy that flows through us," all of which are extremely vauge or have no predictive power.

Unlike science, religion does not take kindly to its claims being challenged. Religions respond with hostility to dissent. Any contradiction is punished. Any form of questioning is discouraged. Rather than modifying their beliefs to fit evidence, religions will deny evidence, or twist their beliefs such that they nominally fit the evidence, while still holding that their obviously false claims are true.

Religion, in contrast to science, is incredibly closed, incredibly rigid, and incredibly poisonous to open minded rationalism.

Edit: My reply was for ridley.

Like I said, I am not arguing for all religions, simply the one that I have the most knowledge of. Modern Catholic teachings do not contradict science, they simply offer an explanation for what science cannot or has not proven. God is not the only answer, simply the final one. By final I mean that science will never be able to explain the universe in full. God is simply an unproven theory, explaining what science cannot, and changing as new evidence is shown.

Catholic?!?! CATHOLIC?!?!

You must be joking. You know you're talking about the backwards institution of medieval hierarchies and absurd doctrines headed by theocratic lunatics, right? The same institution that believes that a talking snake convinced the first woman to eat an evil apple, that when one has communion, one literally drinks the blood of a long dead and possibly mythical cult leader, and that using a condom could lead you to be cast into a magical lake of fire where you will burn forever and ever?

THAT doesn't contradict with science?

 

[RidleyRockets]

That's the reply i wish i would have written, bravo sir.

 

[MorganFreeman911]

Catholic?!?! CATHOLIC?!?!

You must be joking. You know you're talking about the backwards institution of medieval hierarchies and absurd doctrines headed by theocratic lunatics, right? The same institution that believes that a talking snake convinced the first woman to eat an evil apple, that when one has communion, one literally drinks the blood of a long dead and possibly mythical cult leader, and that using a condom could lead you to be cast into a magical lake of fire where you will burn forever and ever?

THAT doesn't contradict with science?

Also, according to the Catholic church, you will get AIDs MORE FREQUENTLY IF YOU USE A CONDOM.
How does that NOT contradict science, for gods sake, even COMMON SENSE!?
God, I hate closeminded people.
Also, I love you OtherGuy.

 

[Azner]

Also, according to the Catholic church, you will get AIDs MORE FREQUENTLY IF YOU USE A CONDOM.

I'm sorry sir, you have to back that claim up with evidence.

 

[MorganFreeman911]

Watch that Intelligence Squared debate, it's cited a few times.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids)
(http://www.google.ca/search?q=pope+...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a for that matter)

 

[Sheepo]

Religion: Making up and selling the most comforting solution to things we don't understand.

Science: Actively pursuing the actual solution to things we don't understand.

 

[Higlac]

I hate it when people base their views on a group of people without investigating exactly what they believe. I am willing to continue the discussion, but I will not respond to things like "lol zombie jew." We are debating the existence of God. I am simply using the profile of God that I know best, using the modern Catholic views on science and creation. We are not discussing the details of Catholic doctrine. I trust we can keep personal opinion on unrelated subjects and assumptions without explanation out of the discussion from here on out?

Let me offer this statement: If there exists a higher degree of being, with no intent to manifest itself to prove it's existence, then, some events, caused by said being, need not follow normal physical laws.

It seems completely unhelpful to create an explanation to fill every gap just because we can't explain something. Science is not the same in that regard, because the theories we come up with are based on observation of the universe and are, in large part (though not solely) on quantifiable evidence. God is nothing more than a human construct with no basis in existence.

God and religion is based in reason. All of existence is infinitely complex, and the beginnings of life arriving through chance alone is highly unlikely. The concept of a sentient creator willing everything, including the laws that govern existence, can not be disproved. It's a choice between nihilism or hope.

True, to an extent, but the difference is that science is based on the unproven assumption that seems correct based on available data, requiring reasoned thinking, religion is based on the unproven assumption that 'feels good', requiring faith. Not the same thing.

If one assumes that not everything can be explained through observation, then the concept of God is perfectly reasonable.

Really? I've largely found the exact opposite is true. "God did it." chanted over and over again is not being flexible.

There are many things that science cannot explain, or it has no method to explain. Such things as the formation of the human psyche from electrical impulses.

If by faith you mean belief in a supernatural divinity of some variety or expression, then yes you can.

I mean faith as in you have faith that you have the ability to explain the world. Again, you're assuming that everything can be explained through observation.

Science does not do proof. Only mathematics and philosophy do proof. You cannot prove something true in science, you can only provide explanations which fit the given data and which can make predictions.

The concept of God fits current data and has no evidence to support the contrary. If my statement from before is true, then no predictions can be made, as said being need not show evidence of its existence.

*valid statements*

Science does not make any assumptions regarding supernatural events or any of the like. Supernatural hypotheses are treated like all other hypotheses. In order for them to be taken seriously, they must make predictions, and the predictions must hold true. They must take into account all available observations and evidence, and they must explain them. The reason science doesn't have any canonical supernatural explanations is because these explanations simply have no predictive power, and have no evidence to support them. However, if someone came up with a hypothesis for explaining the universe which relied on a supernatural being, and this hypothesis could be used to make predictions which were true, science would gladly accept it.

The scientific method is a very useful tool for explaining the natural world, but it relies on the assumption that you can explain everything through observation.

The very word supernatural means "higher, over or above natural. Would said being or explanation need to provide natural evidence?

Let's take for example the claims of Christians that prayer can affect the world. This is in fact a hypothesis. The form of this hypothesis is "If one prays for X, then X will occur more often than if one did not pray for X." This hypothesis could be tested via an experiment, and if X occurred more often if it was prayed for, and less often if it was not, the prayer hypothesis would hold water and would be incorporated into the scientific knowledge about the world. Very many such studies have been done, showing that the prayer hypothesis has no predictive power, and it is therefore thrown out until more evidence supporting it can be presented.

Thank you.

Nonsense, if the "postulates of science" *snip* rationalism.

Again, I am speaking through modern Catholic viewpoints, not those of medieval and fundamentalist Christians. Do some research, and don't forget that Catholic monks and nuns were responsible for the preservation of much of Greek and Roman culture, as well as making many discoveries in the fields of genetics and botany.

I don't want to repeat myself about those postulates and assumptions, so I won't.

Catholic?!?! CATHOLIC?!?!

You must be joking. You know you're talking about the backwards institution of medieval hierarchies and absurd doctrines headed by theocratic lunatics, right? The same institution that believes that a talking snake convinced the first woman to eat an evil apple, that when one has communion, one literally drinks the blood of a long dead and possibly mythical cult leader, and that using a condom could lead you to be cast into a magical lake of fire where you will burn forever and ever?

THAT doesn't contradict with science?

Do you want me to explain the details?

My main points are: If there exists a higher degree of being, with no intent to manifest itself to prove it's existence, then, some events, caused by said being, need not follow normal physical laws.

And that Science assumes that everything can be explained through observation.

 

[Acepilotf14]

And that Science assumes that everything can be explained through observation.

If something cannot be observed, and if a conclusion cannot be replicated, then it is invalid and merely guesswork. That is science.

 

[Krynn72]

God and religion is based in reason.

No it isn't. Its based on faith.

All of existence is infinitely complex, and the beginnings of life arriving through chance alone is highly unlikely.

Its far more likely than life being designed.

The concept of a sentient creator willing everything, including the laws that govern existence, can not be disproved. It's a choice between nihilism or hope.

Its a choice between nihilism or a lie. The fact that it cannot technically be disproved is not proof of it being so. There are an infinite number of things that don't exist that cannot be disproved.

 

[theotherguy]

I hate it when people base their views on a group of people without investigating exactly what they believe. I am willing to continue the discussion, but I will not respond to things like "lol zombie jew." We are debating the existence of God. I am simply using the profile of God that I know best, using the modern Catholic views on science and creation. We are not discussing the details of Catholic doctrine. I trust we can keep personal opinion on unrelated subjects and assumptions without explanation out of the discussion from here on out?

You are making the claim that "modern Catholic views" do not contradict science. I have provided counterexamples, the garden of Eden, the virgin birth, and transubstantiation -- all of which are part of "modern Catholic views" (i.e. present doctrine). If you want to pretend that Catholic doctrine does not contradict science, you must show me that these counterexamples do not.

Let me offer this statement: If there exists a higher degree of being, with no intent to manifest itself to prove it's existence, then, some events, caused by said being, need not follow normal physical laws.

Great, that's a prediction. Now, let's test it. You said it yourself. If a divine being exists and interacts with the universe, then there should be some events which do not follow physical laws. When you find such an event, your hypothesis will be validated with a piece of evidence. If no evidence is found, we have a few possibilities:

1. Divine beings exist and interact with the world in such a way that they were not even there (ie. the universe follows physical laws with or without gods)

2. Divine beings exist and interact with the world in such a way as to make it obvious (ie. breaking physical laws) but we have not as of yet found the evidence.

3. Divine beings do not exist.

Since it is impossible to differentiate between the three without further evidence, we must maintain the null hypothesis, that is, that we don't know about the existence of divine beings, and that the divine being hypothesis is of no predictive value.

God and religion is based in reason. All of existence is infinitely complex, and the beginnings of life arriving through chance alone is highly unlikely. The concept of a sentient creator willing everything, including the laws that govern existence, can not be disproved. It's a choice between nihilism or hope.

And now we have five claims. Let's go through them one by one.

Claim 1: God and religion is based in reason.
Great, that means you must have some nice rational arguments backing up your beliefs right? Let's hear them.

Claim 2: All of existence is infinitely complex.
Nope, sorry. The universe is a finite set. It has finite complexity.

Claim 3: the beginnings of life arriving through chance alone is highly unlikely
Suppose you have a hand of cards in poker. What is the likelihood that you have a particular full house, say 3C 3S 3D 6C 6H? Now, what is the likelihood that you have another particular hand, say 2D 2S 2C KS 6H? (This particular hand is a three of a kind).

The answer is, the same probability for both hands, 1/2,598,960. In fact it is the same probability for all hands of poker.

Now, lets say you throw a deck of cards into the air, and pick five randomly out of the pile that results. The probability of you getting ANY particular hand is astronomically small, 1/2,598,960.

However, the probability that you get some kind of poker hand is 1/1.

We are a cosmic poker hand. We happen to be living. The likelihood that a particular planet contains life is astronomically tiny, extremely extremely small -- but since we ARE living, the probability that some planet in the universe contains life is 1/1.

Besides, to paraphrase Carl Sagan , the universe is so vast and so old, that even the astronomically unlikely becomes certainty. There are hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions of planets in the universe. The universe is over 13 billion years old. We know that the probability that life arose on at least one of those planets is 1/1. Therefore, the minimum probability for life to exist is at least 1/1 trillion, and its probably much much more. If the probability of life existing on a particular planet were 1/1 billion, there would still be 1,000 places in the universe where life exists.



Claim 4: The concept of a sentient creator willing everything, including the laws that govern existence, can not be disproved.

The concept that there is an invisible elephant sitting on top of my head willing the thoughts into my brain as I think them, also cannot be disproved.

Therefore there is an invisible elephant sitting on top of my head, willing the thoughts into my brain.

Claim 5: It's a choice between nihilism or hope.
This is a nasty little claim that gets thrown around a lot which has no weight to it. What do you mean nihilism and hope? The universe has the meaning that we give it. Meaning is a subjective quality which arises in the minds of men. If you can find no meaning in the universe without believing that it exists to please a supernatural deity, then I truly feel sorry for you.

If one assumes that not everything can be explained through observation, then the concept of God is perfectly reasonable.

If one assumes that magic exists, wizards are perfectly reasonable.

But in any case, you are correct that not everything can be explained through observation. Qualitative truths, for instance, can only be explained by rational arguments. However, that doesn't make the concept of a god or gods any more reasonable. One cannot make the leap from "it cannot be explained" to "it must have been a god." This is called the fallacy of ignorance.

There are many things that science cannot explain, or it has no method to explain. Such things as the formation of the human psyche from electrical impulses.

Cognitive psychology and neuroscience are together doing a pretty damn good job of explaining this. I believe we will have a complete understanding of the human brain within a century.

And again you are making this fallacy of ignorance. Just because science cannot yet explain something does not mean it is unexplainable, and just because something is unexplainable doesn't mean it must have been caused by a god.

The concept of God fits current data and has no evidence to support the contrary. If my statement from before is true, then no predictions can be made, as said being need not show evidence of its existence.

May I suggest you look up "Burden of Proof"?

The scientific method is a very useful tool for explaining the natural world, but it relies on the assumption that you can explain everything through observation.

It does not.

The very word supernatural means "higher, over or above natural. Would said being or explanation need to provide natural evidence?

First you must show that "supernatural" is not an incoherent term. How might a supernatural thing exist?

All claims should be backed up with evidence before being accepted. You yourself mentioned a nifty little feature of the god concept which can be tested.

If a god interacts with the natural world, that god must cause changes in the natural world by its power alone. These changes, since they are part of the natural world, count as natural evidence. Therefore, if a god existed, and interacted with the natural world, we would expect to see natural evidence of its existence.

There is no natural evidence of the existence of a god or gods. That implies that either gods do not exist, gods do not interact with the universe, or we have not yet encountered evidence for their existence. In all three of these cases, gods are not something that should be worried about or taken seriously.

Again, I am speaking through modern Catholic viewpoints, not those of medieval and fundamentalist Christians. Do some research, and don't forget that Catholic monks and nuns were responsible for the preservation of much of Greek and Roman culture, as well as making many discoveries in the fields of genetics and botany.

I was referring to the institutions and rulers of the Catholic church as Medieval (as in backward, close-minded, and primitive), and not the time period. The Catholic church was useful in protecting culture in those barbaric times because they were the richest, most organized unit in Europe at the time. The Catholic church today makes no great discoveries, and is not regarded as a repository of knowledge in the slightest.

Do you want me to explain the details?

My main points are: If there exists a higher degree of being, with no intent to manifest itself to prove it's existence, then, some events, caused by said being, need not follow normal physical laws.

And that Science assumes that everything can be explained through observation.

Your point 1 is self contradictory. If a "higher degree being" (which you have carelessly refused to define) decides to cause events, then those events would be clearly visible and obvious evidence for the existence of such a being.

Science does not assume everything can be explained through observation. It assumes that our observations in the present can be used to make predictions about observations we will have in the future. This is the only really serious philosophical assumption science makes, and I do not think it unreasonable.

 

[Higlac]

If something cannot be observed, and if a conclusion cannot be replicated, then it is invalid and merely guesswork. That is science.

Exactly why the scientific method cannot be used to prove or disprove the existence of God.

No it isn't. Its based on faith.



Its far more likely than life being designed.



Its a choice between nihilism or a lie. The fact that it cannot technically be disproved is not proof of it being so. There are an infinite number of things that don't exist that cannot be disproved.

Done reading yet?

 

[Wanted Bob]

Watch that Intelligence Squared debate, it's cited a few times.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids)
(http://www.google.ca/search?q=pope+...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a for that matter)

It's truly rediculous. They claim that since the AIDs virus is 400 times smaller than a sperm cell (havent checked this fact myself), it has the ability to bypass the latex in condoms and spread the disease anyways. THEN they say that using condoms is a bad idea because it becomes a "temporary" fix, when the problem that really needs to be fixed is morality issues (because we all know that can easily be fixed, right?:rolling.

 

[Acepilotf14]

Exactly why the scientific method cannot be used to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Because it cannot be observed, it can be assumed false. While the state of being able observe a 'god' could change at any moment, it hasn't yet.

 

[Eejit]

You are making the claim that "modern Catholic views" do not contradict science. I have provided counterexamples, the garden of Eden, the virgin birth, and transubstantiation -- all of which are part of "modern Catholic views" (i.e. present doctrine).

Actually Catholic doctrine does not take Genesis to be literal, to them "The Original Sin" was some ambiguous act of disobeying God, not necessarily "GET THE **** AWAY FROM MY APPLES YOU LITTLE WANKERS!"

 

[Higlac]

Well, I came into this thread to throw my 2 cents worth in here. It then turned into a multi-quote war and I ended up defending a faith that I only marginally believe simply because this forum is full of anti-religious bigots who can't accept the fact that this argument is at a stalemate. I'll let you guys think you've won because "lol imaginary friends." To be quite honest, I'm more of an agnostic with pro-Catholic leanings. I haven't been to mass since I've moved out of my parent's house last year, but I will still defend Catholicism.

Actually Catholic doctrine does not take Genesis to be literal, to them "The Original Sin" was some ambiguous act of disobeying God, not necessarily "GET THE **** AWAY FROM MY APPLES YOU LITTLE WANKERS!"

That's rather humorous, sigged.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

If one assumes that not everything can be explained through observation, then the concept of God is perfectly reasonable.

Yes, it's called religion, it's the opposite of science.

Again, you're assuming that everything can be explained through observation.

Yes, because I'm not religious.

The concept of God fits current data and has no evidence to support the contrary.

Really? What data is there to support the idea of God? And don't tell me it's that there are certain things science can't yet explain, by that notion five hundred years ago the fact that everything was being pushed downwards was proof of god, until science explained gravity. And while that may sound like adjusting a theory to fit with evidence, it's not, because you're simply changing the question, not the answer. "Why can't science explain phenomena X?" "It's God."

 

[ríomhaire]

Except science hasn't yet explained gravity, if you explained that you'd win a Nobel prize. We do know exactly what it does, though. I'm not arguing in favour of God or anything. I'm just being a pedant.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

Except science hasn't yet explained gravity, if you explained that you'd win a Nobel prize. We do know exactly what it does, though. I'm not arguing in favour of God or anything. I'm just being a pedant.

I- yeah, I meant explained gravity in the sense of the effects of gravity, not the cause, which is, as you say, still a mystery.

 

[Acepilotf14]

Except science hasn't yet explained gravity, if you explained that you'd win a Nobel prize. We do know exactly what it does, though. I'm not arguing in favour of God or anything. I'm just being a pedant.

We don't know what a God does, though, even if such a thing exists. What does he do? Magically make things better or worse? Are all things 'natural' controlled by God?

The first step is finding out what something does before you can find out the cause; a good explanation of this is video games. Trial and error, if I click the left mouse button, what happens? I shoot the gun, or whatever. Then, we know that the left mouse button causes this action. The next step is 'why'? Because the game's code dictates it.

Gods are just explanations of the mysteries of the world that we have slowly been discovering over the past millennium or so. With this new-found knowledge we no longer need religion to explain reality, but some people just do not want to let go.

 

[Higlac]

I don't think its that people don't want to let religion go, it's that they need some sort of reason in their lives. They might find it depressing that they slaved away at school, then a meaningless job for forty years, and then nothing. People just want to think that there is more to life. Other than the fact that some people think that it's stupid, there is absolutely no evidence showing why God can't exist.

 

[Acepilotf14]

There is absolutely no evidence saying that there is not a teacup orbiting around Jupiter.

I remember someone quoted this from some book in another thread. It makes quite a bit of sense to me when someone says there is no evidence not pointing towards something.

 

[Polaris]

I'll let you guys think you've won because "lol imaginary friends." To be quite honest, I'm more of an agnostic with pro-Catholic leanings. I haven't been to mass since I've moved out of my parent's house last year, but I will still defend Catholicism.

No, it's not because of "lol imaginary friends", theotherguy and others presented very good, mature and reasonable responses to your naive claims.
If you're an agnostic why you defending Catholic point of view? It doesn't make any sense (of course it does, your parents are Catholics), why not Baptist, Mormon or even Islamic faith?

 

[Dodo]

Ive got this book that says god is a gigantic sausage floating in outerspace doing **** all, prove me wrong.

 

[VirusType2]

I don't think its that people don't want to let religion go, it's that they need some sort of reason in their lives. They might find it depressing that they slaved away at school, then a meaningless job for forty years, and then nothing. People just want to think that there is more to life. Other than the fact that some people think that it's stupid, there is absolutely no evidence showing why God can't exist.

It's been said before: we humans have it so good and we are completely out of touch with nature. In the wild there are no rules and laws except survival of the fittest/the laws of nature. It is a cold cold, cold, cold and cruel ****ing world. You can't possibly grasp it by watching nature shows on TV. Everything out there is supremely adapted to survival, and just about everything out there is competing with you.

The majority of plant-life is poison, any animal capable of it will attempt to eat you, animals that are not capable will fear you. I could drop dead right in front of my pet lizard and he might not even notice, ever. It's just the damnedest thing.

Domesticated dogs are really the only ally humans have, and that's only if they know you or you help them in some way. If food runs out, guess what that friendship means to them?

This isn't exactly news, but we are not unique in our desire to continue to exist. Every intelligent creature on this planet will do whatever it takes to survive.

I guess my point is that we just die one day, and that's the end - just like every living thing on the planet.

It is self-importance on a mind blowing scale that makes people think they can live on for eternity in paradise after they die. Get real!

 

[RidleyRockets]

there is absolutely no evidence showing why God can't exist.

You can say that for any number of ridiculous things.

There is no evidence to rule out invisible magic pink dinosaurs. Do you take time to seriously ponder their existence? Yes or no.

 

[Dodo]

Every intelligent creature on this planet will do whatever it takes to survive.

Every living thing will do whatever it takes to survive... right? Life wants to survive.

 

[Dan]

It's been said before: we humans have it so good and we are completely out of touch with nature. In the wild there are no rules and laws except survival of the fittest/the laws of nature. It is a cold cold, cold, cold and cruel ****ing world. You can't possibly grasp it by watching nature shows on TV. Everything out there is supremely adapted to survival, and just about everything out there is competing with you.

The majority of plant-life is poison, any animal capable of it will attempt to eat you, animals that are not capable will fear you. I could drop dead right in front of my pet lizard and he might not even notice, ever. It's just the damnedest thing.

Domesticated dogs are really the only ally humans have, and that's only if they know you or you help them in some way. If food runs out, guess what that friendship means to them?

This isn't exactly news, but we are not unique in our desire to continue to exist. Every intelligent creature on this planet will do whatever it takes to survive.

I guess my point is that we just die one day, and that's the end - just like every living thing on the planet.

It is self-importance on a mind blowing scale that makes people think they can live on for eternity in paradise after they die. Get real!

We still are in the wild. We just had the sense to put a condo and some movie theatres out here. If the Zebras on the nature channel had any sense, they would do the same.

 

[Higlac]

At this point, I'm merely here as a counterpoint for debate.

No, it's not because of "lol imaginary friends", theotherguy and others presented very good, mature and reasonable responses to your naive claims.
If you're an agnostic why you defending Catholic point of view? It doesn't make any sense (of course it does, your parents are Catholics), why not Baptist, Mormon or even Islamic faith?

They did post very good arguments, however, in my first post I merely gave my opinion. I didn't want to start some huge multiquote war. I was defending the Catholic point of view because it's the one that I know the most about. Just playing to my strengths.

It's been said before: we humans have it so good and we are completely out of touch with nature. In the wild there are no rules and laws except survival of the fittest/the laws of nature. It is a cold cold, cold, cold and cruel ****ing world. You can't possibly grasp it by watching nature shows on TV. Everything out there is supremely adapted to survival, and just about everything out there is competing with you.

The majority of plant-life is poison, any animal capable of it will attempt to eat you, animals that are not capable will fear you. I could drop dead right in front of my pet lizard and he might not even notice, ever. It's just the damnedest thing.

Domesticated dogs are really the only ally humans have, and that's only if they know you or you help them in some way. If food runs out, guess what that friendship means to them?

This isn't exactly news, but we are not unique in our desire to continue to exist. Every intelligent creature on this planet will do whatever it takes to survive.

I guess my point is that we just die one day, and that's the end - just like every living thing on the planet.

It is self-importance on a mind blowing scale that makes people think they can live on for eternity in paradise after they die. Get real!

There is a big difference between humans and animals though. Humans are capable of reason. We are fundamentally different from animals.

Sure, if they're wrong, then they miss one hour per week, and some community service every once in a while, but they've still lived a fulfilling life. But what if they're right?

Nobody knows what happens after death, there is one recorded instance of someone coming back from the dead, but the most common response to that seems to be "lol zombie jew." Millions of people believe this "cult" but no one here seems to appreciate the value that it can bring to life.

You can say that for any number of ridiculous things.

There is no evidence to rule out invisible magic pink dinosaurs. Do you take time to seriously ponder their existence? Yes or no.

Magic pink dinosaurs haven't been a hot topic for debate for thousands of years. Billions of people believe in some kind of god. There must be at least some element of truth to it.

 

[Sulkdodds]

That presumes society couldn't evolve the concept of God by itself.

 

[RidleyRockets]

Magic pink dinosaurs haven't been a hot topic for debate for thousands of years. Billions of people believe in some kind of god. There must be at least some element of truth to it.

This just an appeal to popularity, a logical fallacy.

It doesn't matter how many people believe something as this doesn't effect the truth, all that matters is the evidence there is to support their claim.

The whole of china thought the earth was flat right up until the 17th century. It wouldn't have mattered if the whole world did, they were wrong.

Now yes or no, do you take the existence of invisible pink dinosaurs seriously?