Spirituality
30 Nov 09
01 Dec 09
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe science you don't trust is the parts that contradict your Christian faith.
I never said trust the internet.
You said you can't trust science, but you trust the science that allows us to have this conversation? I guess you trust the science that produced your computer, and the science that puts the electricity into your home.
The science you don't trust is the parts that contradict your Christian faith.
Exactly. And not just science. Anything that contradicts God can't be trusted.
01 Dec 09
Originally posted by josephwI've never used science to prove or disprove god.
The scientific method is to falsify a theory.
If you can't prove God doesn't exist then why use science as a means for justifying His non-existence?
You know, when you say there's no evidence. God is invisible, but what He has created isn't.
Can't trust science anymore. It's a religion now. Politically motivated.
It can't be done.
Oh no, I smell a climate change argument coming ...
01 Dec 09
Originally posted by amannionROFLMAO
I've never used science to prove or disprove god.
It can't be done.
Oh no, I smell a climate change argument coming ...
Look. I know the difference between a fool and a real scientist.
I see all that exists as evidence for the existence of God.
You said in the other thread that you abhor spiritualism.
I abhor the idea that my existence is fatal.
01 Dec 09
Originally posted by josephwI never said I abhor spiritualism.
ROFLMAO
Look. I know the difference between a fool and a real scientist.
I see all that exists as evidence for the existence of God.
You said in the other thread that you abhor spiritualism.
I abhor the idea that my existence is fatal.
I said I abhor the supernatural. I consider myself a very spiritual person, I just don't believe in a 'spirit' or 'spirits'.
I'm annoyed that I'm going to die sure, who isn't. But I accept the reality of that death as a part of this existence.
01 Dec 09
Originally posted by josephwThis kond of thread is the very reason that I use my mantra over and over again:
So, if it can't be verified by testing God doesn't exist?
What test is that?
A scientist observes the physical universe and can't see anything that would prove the existence of God?
I thought the scientific method was to try to falsify evidence. If there is no evidence to falsify, how can one say there is no God?
Religion and science cannot ever be mixed! Don't even try!
That day we actually scientifically can prove that the christian god exists, that day the christian religion is dead.
But I find it very funny that one day some christians so hard trying to use science to prove religious matters, the other day say that science is their enimy because it cannot prove any religious matter. But religion and science cannot mix, it's not its purpous.
But science can prove that evolution is a fact, therefore some christians feel threatened. That's why they insist to see science as their enimy. Yet they use the fruits of science everyday, even without noticing it. Internet and computers is such a thing. They love to use it, but they hate its foundations.
There are more dangers within the christian community than science. They should firstly identify these dangers than attack science.
02 Dec 09
Originally posted by josephwCan you describe what evidence that God does NOT exist would look like? In science we never claim EVERYTHING is evidence for something. We describe what evidence against it might be.
ROFLMAO
Look. I know the difference between a fool and a real scientist.
I see all that exists as evidence for the existence of God.
You said in the other thread that you abhor spiritualism.
I abhor the idea that my existence is fatal.
Can you do that for Christianity?
02 Dec 09
I have attempted to think of analogy on a usual atheistic viewpoint of a specific kind of God (e.g. a Christian God). It will require a different argument if you are talking about a creator (any god).
Imagine you have a million small boxes. Initially you do not know what is in either of them. You then start investigating and look in a few of them. You might find that some are empty, or you find objects which you see in every day life (like a ball, a pen, a key, etc). Nothing unusual in this.
Someone comes along and tells you that he has read about these million boxes, and in one of them is Tinkerbell (which has the abilities and characteristics as the flying fairy as described in Peter Pan). You have not experienced in your lifetime any such thing as Tinkerbell, except in fairy stories, so you would naturally doubt that there is one in any of the boxes. You certainly cannot prove that Tinkerbell is in any of them unless you look into every single box. It would be acceptable to conclude that the probability of one being there is so extremely small that there might as well say there isn't one.
If there is a tinkerbell in one of the boxes, the odds of you finding it if you look in just 50 of them are 20,000:1. If, by chance, you do find tinkerbell, and it is peer reviewed by your colleagues that it matches the definition of what tinkerbell is, then those odds suddenly change to 1:1. Until then, it will remain low odds (unless you have searched a high percentage of those boxes). So that shows that it is far easier to prove that tinkerbell exists in one of the boxes (by finding it by chance), then prove that tinkerbell doesn't exist in any of the boxes (which will require looking in every single box).
It doesn't stop there though, the person who came along could have said it was something else, like a unicorn, or some arbituary thing which he calls a fnarforbarbar. There could be an infinite number of possible things that this person could have said, and yet he claims this thing exists. Because of the impractibility of proving that this arbituary thing that this random person has said doesn't exist in one of the boxes, it is on the onus of the person making the claim to prove it does. Maybe by looking into the boxes himself until he finds it (which statistically will be easier than looking in every single box to prove it doesn't).
Yet we are constantly told that there is this thing that exists which we just have to accept, if you don't you will suffer. This is desribed in scripture. From the sceptical person's standpoint, scripture isn't proof. No matter how much you quote it to the sceptic, it will mean nothing. If it does exist then you have to prove it does. Proving it doesn't isn't a very pragmatic approach.
02 Dec 09
Originally posted by lauseySo if you tell me that the bible is correct and I should read it and believe what can be read within, is exactly the same situation as if I tell you that the quaran is correct and you should read it and believe what can be read within.
Yet we are constantly told that there is this thing that exists which we just have to accept, if you don't you will suffer. This is desribed in scripture. From the sceptical person's standpoint, scripture isn't proof. No matter how much you quote it to the sceptic, it will mean nothing. If it does exist then you have to prove it does. Proving it doesn't isn't a very pragmatic approach.
Do you accept the bible of the same reason that you should accept the quaran? Or vice versa?
And this is the whole point! What is the right god? What is the right religion? What is the right scripture to read? Why not believe in every religion, just in case...?
02 Dec 09
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasNot sure if you are arguing against me. I am an atheist and sceptic. 🙂
So if you tell me that the bible is correct and I should read it and believe what can be read within, is exactly the same situation as if I tell you that the quaran is correct and you should read it and believe what can be read within.
Do you accept the bible of the same reason that you should accept the quaran? Or vice versa?
And this is the whole ...[text shortened]... ligion? What is the right scripture to read? Why not believe in every religion, just in case...?
I don't agree with the Quaran, bible or any religious scripture. I was using Christianity as an example, and trying to show where the burden of proof lies (i.e. the person making the claim).
02 Dec 09
Originally posted by lauseyWith 'you' I meant the unpersonal pronoun, not directed to you or any other specific person. Perhaps I should use the neutral 'one' instead.
Not sure if you are arguing against me. I am an atheist and sceptic. 🙂
I don't agree with the Quaran, bible or any religious scripture. I was using Christianity as an example.
Many christians is of the opinion that they know the "'The Ultimate Answer". Anyone deviating from that answer is completely wrong. Funny that the christian religion is so heterogene to begin with.
Your example was lengthy and I didn't understand everything in it. Perhaps I mad a wrong conclusion of what you really meant. Sorry if this was the case.
02 Dec 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasSorry, meant I wasn't sure if you were arguing against my position, as opposed to agreeing with my position. I didn't interpret it as personal. 🙂
With 'you' I meant the unpersonal pronoun, not directed to you or any other specific person. Perhaps I should use the neutral 'one' instead.
Many christians is of the opinion that they know the "'The Ultimate Answer". Anyone deviating from that answer is completely wrong. Funny that the christian religion is so heterogene to begin with.
Your example ...[text shortened]... . Perhaps I mad a wrong conclusion of what you really meant. Sorry if this was the case.
I guess my explaination was rather lengthy, and my analogy is probably more confusing than I intended. It boils down to this:
A. Proving that God does exist will require looking around until you find him, which might require looking everywhere, but not necessarily so.
B. Proving that God doesn't exist will definitely require looking everywhere (the whole universe and possibly infinite multiverses) to confirm that he doesn't exist.
A is easier than B, so the person who claims that God does exist has to do A. The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim.
02 Dec 09
Originally posted by lauseyThis makes it all clearer! 🙂
Sorry, meant I wasn't sure if you were arguing against my position, as opposed to agreeing with my position. I didn't interpret it as personal. 🙂
I guess my explaination was rather lengthy, and my analogy is probably more confusing than I intended. It boils down to this:
A. Proving that God does exist will require looking around until you find him, wh ...[text shortened]... s that God does exist has to do A. The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim.
I say that god doesn't have to be proven scientifically. If he exists he exists. The very instant he actually is proven, he cease to be a god.
And the opposite: I say that god doesn't have to be disproven either. If he doesn't exist, he doesn't exist. Many people would be unhappy if he is proven scientifically to not to exist. Bit it cannot be done.
It cannot be done because - Religion and science cannot ever be mixed! (I've said it before, I think...)
02 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasYes, makes sense to me. My analogy was for a specific kind of God, which has a certain definition, characteristics, etc. Could be a Christian God, Allah, or whatever. Considering that a specific God has different definitions to different people, I decided to use Tinkerbell, which is fictional, but has a more agreeable definition based on the Peter Pan stories, hence why I used it (but turns out more confusing).
This makes it all clearer! 🙂
I say that god doesn't have to be proven scientifically. If he exists he exists. The very instant he actually is proven, he cease to be a god.
And the opposite: I say that god doesn't have to be disproven either. If he doesn't exist, he doesn't exist. Many people would be unhappy if he is proven scientifically to not to e ...[text shortened]... done because - Religion and science cannot ever be mixed! (I've said it before, I think...)
Replacing my above scenarios with Tinkerbell:
A. Proving that Tinkerbell does exist will require looking around until you find him, which might require looking everywhere, but not necessarily so.
B. Proving that Tinkerbell doesn't exist will definitely require looking everywhere (the whole universe and possibly infinite multiverses) to confirm that he doesn't exist.
I would say that the odds are that Tinkerbell doesn't exist anywhere but I cannot prove that he doesn't exist.
It becomes a different story when you are talking about proving a creator in general, as this will cover a much larger scope than any of the religions on Earth. The odds of a creator are higher than a god of a specific religion, but in my view still extremely small. Small to me, because a creator isn't needed for evolution to work, and therefore fits with Occam's Razor.
Often I have found that people make the leap of faith from the very small probability of a "creator" to their specific, and much less probable "God".
02 Dec 09
Originally posted by lauseyPerhaps I have problems with the "Tinkerbell" think. I haven't read the Peter Pan (?) in it's original language.
Yes, makes sense to me. My analogy was for a specific kind of God, which has a certain definition, characteristics, etc. Could be a Christian God, Allah, or whatever. Considering that a specific God has different definitions to different people, I decided to use Tinkerbell, which is fictional, but has a more agreeable definition based on the Peter Pan stories ...[text shortened]... very small probability of a "creator" to their specific, and much less probable "God".
What is a Tinkerbell?
02 Dec 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasIt is a fictional character, a small fairy that flies around. Maybe use a unicorn as an example instead, or anything fictional that has quite a specific definition (more specific than God).
Perhaps I have problems with the "Tinkerbell" think. I haven't read the Peter Pan (?) in it's original language.
What is a Tinkerbell?