Can We Stop Arguing the Existence Of God?
- Thread starter Balerion
- Start date
*************Oh no not another one of those - we have hundreds already.
M*W: It might be more entertaining to start a thread for christians only to explain to us why they believe in a god as they describe their experience. I need a few good laughs!
On a sidenote, the generic concept of 'God' is not falsifiable; however, specific human claims of 'God' are. More importantly, the root of such claims are heavily influenced by a survival mechanism called anthropomoprhism so we also have an explanation as to why claims of 'God' exist.
The God Hypothesis can be disproved the same way it can be disproved that babies don't come from storks. I suppose one must admit that it's not totally impossible for a stork to bring someone a baby, but it's so unlikely that no one should take it seriously. Only math can disprove things, and that's an abstract world.
yes,sense of humor is good,but when it comes to help, in sickness and such,
I take science over god and prayer everytime.
and I have a feeling that great majority of religious people will too.
and when they get better no doubt they will praise god for healing them.
sure you can, check this
http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/evangelical_ath/einstein_emc2.htm
and
http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/godlogic.html
true.. BUT no ONE is forcing demons, ghosts into the schools like they are trying to do with Jebus!
it belongs into the past imo,
young kids should be brought up with scientificaly proven facts and truth and knowledge instead of some fictious fantasy tales,if you ever want to build better world.
the way I see it
religion does NOT make you better person or need you to live sin less life and be good when all it takes is faith=belief in god to get into haven!
why should religious person care for the environment IF they believe they will end up in haven anyway,as long as they believe and worship in God?
its not sciences job to disprove gods its for philosophers.
Scorpius, I agree with you, but I just feel like we're wasting our time trying to prove where the "God Concept" comes from. It's pointless to argue existence, because they can keep pushing it back in the equation. What needs to be argued are the reasons why it doesn't belong in schools, and doesn't belong in politics.
As spidergoat mentioned in a different thread, when it comes to God it's not about proving or disproving, but rather probability. However, I find both the theories of Intelligent Design and natural occurences equally plausable with equal weight.
I attended a university convocation the other day. It was a small group, around a 1000 people were receiving their degrees. This was only a small segment of the university's population and in this gathering there were 5 people slated to receive their doctorates. I thought that was great until I found out they were all philosophers. I have a low regard for philosophers as some of you may know, particularly the religious variety and they remind me of this story:
A priest rented a gondola and gondolier to see him safely across a wide expanse of water. 1/4 of the way across the priest asked the gondolier if he had ever gone to church. The gondolier said he hadn't, prompting the priest to inform him that he had wasted a 1/4 of his life. 1/2 way across the priest asked if he had ever read the Bible. The gondolier again spoke that he hadn't. The priest told the gondolier that he had now wasted 1/2 of his life. 3/4 across the water the silence was again broken by the priest asking the gondolier if he had ever prayed to god. No, wqs the reply. The upset priest told the gondolier that he had now wasted 3/4 of his life.
Just then the boat started taking on water and was obviously going to sink before they reached shore. The gondolier asked his passenger if he knew how to swim whereupon the priest answer, 'No', he did not. Before he jumped off and swam to shore the gondolier looked the priest in the eye and said.' then you have wasted your whole life then"
Sometimes I'm reminded of that moral when I wax philosophic(argue religion). I wonder if one of those new doctors of philosophy will open up a philosophy office downtown and hang up a sign stating they're looking for patience.
A priest rented a gondola and gondolier to see him safely across a wide expanse of water. 1/4 of the way across the priest asked the gondolier if he had ever gone to church. The gondolier said he hadn't, prompting the priest to inform him that he had wasted a 1/4 of his life. 1/2 way across the priest asked if he had ever read the Bible. The gondolier again spoke that he hadn't. The priest told the gondolier that he had now wasted 1/2 of his life. 3/4 across the water the silence was again broken by the priest asking the gondolier if he had ever prayed to god. No, wqs the reply. The upset priest told the gondolier that he had now wasted 3/4 of his life.
Just then the boat started taking on water and was obviously going to sink before they reached shore. The gondolier asked his passenger if he knew how to swim whereupon the priest answer, 'No', he did not. Before he jumped off and swam to shore the gondolier looked the priest in the eye and said.' then you have wasted your whole life then"
Sometimes I'm reminded of that moral when I wax philosophic(argue religion). I wonder if one of those new doctors of philosophy will open up a philosophy office downtown and hang up a sign stating they're looking for patience.
Reverse the order Draq...sounds better, chronologically speaking.
1) How can you calculate the probability of a creator existing without knowing whether or not a universe even requires creating.
2) How can you weigh natural causation and intelligent design equally when there is only evidence for natural causation?
1) A universe must come into existence, hence, it is "created". I suppose created is not the right word, since that implies intelligent intervention. Basically, it is obvious a universe must come into existence. The question is, how?
2) There is no such evidence. Evidence only exists to show us the process of universal creation (the fallout from the big bang) but NOT what lead to that.
Norsefire said:
But again I ask how you calculate the probability for intelligent design. How can you calculate the possibility of something you have no evidence for?
There is absolutely evidence. We have evidence that shows that the processes occurring after the big bang are altogether natural. Why would you assume the causation of the universe was different?
I calculate it based on what is known and observed. So far, I see little reason to give greater weight to natural causes than to intelligent design. There is not enough, if any, evidence for either side.
There is evidence that there was a big bang. However, what was the driving force behind it? What caused it?
Of course everything AFTER would be natural, since the universe would already exist and thus the natural laws as well.
That was irrelevant. It's about how this universe and these laws came about, and why they act as they do; why forces do not falter, and what ensures that everything is as it is and cannot be anything else.
Again, Norse, you're giving weight to the assumption that the "nature" of the big bang was any less natural than the occurrences that happen within it. What reason do you have to assume that the universe is anything more than a step in a natural process? We see that everything after the BB is natural, so why would anything before it be otherwise?
I am not saying it had to be. There is a possibility that the universe is a step in a natural process. But I find such a thing to have equal weight to the universe having been created by an intelligent entity.
The reason they both have equal weight is because they both lack true evidence to support them. There is no true evidence to show that the universe was the process of natural occurence. The big bang is not evidence, even if it were proven (remember, it's just a theory). It merely shows how the universe came about. Any natural laws came DURING or AFTER the creation of the universe, not before.
So it's impossible to have evidence as to whether or not the universe is a natural occurence or a creation, and therefore both theories hold equal weight to me in their inability to be backed up.