DeletedUser8950
That, my good friends, is the sight of a battered, bruised, broken and beaten forum warrior fleeing with his tail between his legs. His arguements are inferior and he knows it.
- Status
DeletedUser19894
I love reading these topics.
Personally, I dont believe in "god", I follow science, because it makes more sense to me. I dont harbor any ill will towards those who choose to believe, as long as they dont try to push thier beliefs on me or tell me that I am wrong for my non-beliefs.
I have had many heated discussions through my many years on this earth and may favorite by far is my co-worker (who is a crazy born-again) telling me to think about it (it, being religion) rationally, because "if you though about it rationally, you would see that there is no way everything could be answered by science." to which I replied "you speak of rational thinking, yet you believe in magic and a wizard in the sky." He had nothing to say and has never said word one to me about religion since.
Bophus - 1
Co-worker - 0
Personally, I dont believe in "god", I follow science, because it makes more sense to me. I dont harbor any ill will towards those who choose to believe, as long as they dont try to push thier beliefs on me or tell me that I am wrong for my non-beliefs.
I have had many heated discussions through my many years on this earth and may favorite by far is my co-worker (who is a crazy born-again) telling me to think about it (it, being religion) rationally, because "if you though about it rationally, you would see that there is no way everything could be answered by science." to which I replied "you speak of rational thinking, yet you believe in magic and a wizard in the sky." He had nothing to say and has never said word one to me about religion since.
Bophus - 1
Co-worker - 0
DeletedUser19894
also, to the god people.
the burden of proof about god, lies with you.
Like ricky gervais said "It annoys me that the burden of proof is on us. It should be: ‘You came up with the idea. Why do you believe it?’ I could tell you I’ve got superpowers. But I can’t go up to people saying ‘Prove I can’t fly.’ They’d go: ‘What do you mean ‘Prove you can’t fly’? Prove you can!”
the burden of proof about god, lies with you.
Like ricky gervais said "It annoys me that the burden of proof is on us. It should be: ‘You came up with the idea. Why do you believe it?’ I could tell you I’ve got superpowers. But I can’t go up to people saying ‘Prove I can’t fly.’ They’d go: ‘What do you mean ‘Prove you can’t fly’? Prove you can!”
DeletedUser
Who here wants to say:
"I am a false prophet, and God is a superstition!"
"I am a false prophet, and God is a superstition!"
DeletedUser
Maybe he mispronounced it, I think that what he was trying to say is created. Nearly everything is created by something, glass from sand, bricks from clay, rock from magma. Maybe what he is trying to say is that everything is created by elements and so what created the elements? God?
I'm sure that with the superior intellect that you always seem to fasion on this forum you can come up with a scientific answer to prove that a higher power did not create the elements.
You could say that they were created in the Big Bang, that hydrogen and helium were created in the moments following the Big Bang and that all the elements were created by them. But then what could of possibly created the Big Bang? Let me use the example of one of my favorite Saints, St. Thomas Aquinas.
1. Everything is caused by something other than itself
2. Therefore the universe was caused by something other than itself.
3. The string of causes cannot be infinitely long.
4. If the string of causes cannot be infinitely long, there must be a first cause.
5. Therefore, there must be a first cause, namely god.
2. Therefore the universe was caused by something other than itself.
3. The string of causes cannot be infinitely long.
4. If the string of causes cannot be infinitely long, there must be a first cause.
5. Therefore, there must be a first cause, namely god.
I say that the first cause is God. He started time and space in the big bang, which created all the elements. And then those elements created stars. And years latter we ended up with earth. And years latter we get water.
If you want to see more examples of facts that the Big Bang has proof of God existing, check this site out: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_schick/bigbang.html
DeletedUser
Can you try to be mature? I'm not even going to attempt to figure out what you mean by that.
Yes, John. The structure of rocks is amazing, and many of them are amazingly beautiful. But, of course, I guess I shouldn't expect you to appreciate that if you can't even pick up on "poetic" phases, such as: "clothed in darkness." I don't believe that there is much of a difference between the words "invent" and "create."
Here are a few verses you asked for:
Genesis 1:1-2
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
Ezekiel 1:27
Then I noticed from the appearance of His loins and upward something like glowing metal that looked like fire all around within it, and from the appearance of His loins and downward I saw something like fire; and there was a radience around Him.
Habakkuk 3:4
His radience is like the sunlight; He has rays flashing from His hand, And there is the hiding of His power.
Exactly, John. Thank you for reiterating what I said. Obviously, all "holy" books claim to have THE way to salvation. However, since we are talking abut the Bible here, I think that what I said was completely relevant.
DeletedUser
The problem that I see with the 'first cause' argument for God is that you have substituted one unknown for another. What caused God? If God just IS, then why can't the universe just BE?
Even if we call the first cause God, it's not very helpful. It doesn't follow that this first cause is bearded male who takes an interest in our lives and wants us to love him and meddle in other people's business and who has written a contentious instruction manual over which people fight and abuse one another. If you don't like the term 'vacuum energy' then substitute 'God' if you will, but it doesn't mean anything more.
When you understand the Theory of Relativity (which I do in part) you realise that not everything sits on a straight time-line as people once thought and there is no need for a beginning (or end) to time as we commonly concieve it. To truly understand that is at least as beautiful and deep as any religious insight.
Even if we call the first cause God, it's not very helpful. It doesn't follow that this first cause is bearded male who takes an interest in our lives and wants us to love him and meddle in other people's business and who has written a contentious instruction manual over which people fight and abuse one another. If you don't like the term 'vacuum energy' then substitute 'God' if you will, but it doesn't mean anything more.
When you understand the Theory of Relativity (which I do in part) you realise that not everything sits on a straight time-line as people once thought and there is no need for a beginning (or end) to time as we commonly concieve it. To truly understand that is at least as beautiful and deep as any religious insight.
DeletedUser
You're asking someone to prove an unrestricted negative. I can't prove that YOU yourself didn't create the elements...The rest of your argumentation is equally specious. Your train of logic of 1.2.3.4.5 is, to be honest, infantile.
To further illustrate my point, i will link to an article, which you will promptly ignore.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/schick_21_1.html
"No one can prove an unrestricted negative" is the reply usually given to those who claim that science can prove that God does not exist. An unrestricted negative is a claim to the effect that something doesn't exist anywhere. Since no one can exhaustively examine every place in the universe, the reply goes, no one can conclusively establish the non-existence of anything.
The principle that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, however, is itself an unrestricted negative. It says, in effect, that there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives. But, if there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives, then no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative. And if no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, then it must be logically possible to prove an unrestricted negative. So the claim that no one can prove a universal negative is self-refuting-if it's true, it's false. What I intend to show here is not only that unrestricted negatives can be proven, but that a number of them have been proven.
Parmenides realized over 2,500 years ago that anything that involves a logical contradiction cannot exist. We know that there are no married bachelors, no square circles, and no largest number because these notions are self-contradictory. They violate the most fundamental law of logic-the law of noncontradiction-which says that nothing can both have a property and lack it at the same time. So one way to prove a universal negative is to show that the notion of a thing is inconsistent.
To prove that God does not exist, then, one only has to demonstrate that the concept of God is inconsistent. Traditional theism defines God as a supreme being-a being than which none greater can be conceived, as St. Anselm would have it. We know, however, that there is no supreme number because such a notion involves a logical contradiction. Every number is such that the number 1 can be added to it. If there were a supreme number, it would be such that the number 1 can and cannot be added to it, and that's impossible. Many believe that the notion of a supreme being is just as incoherent as the notion of a supreme number.
Consider, for example, the claim that god is all-good and thus both perfectly merciful and perfectly just. If he is perfectly just, he makes sure that everyone gets exactly what's coming to them. If he is perfectly merciful, he let's everyone off. But he can't do both. So the notion of a supreme being may be internally inconsistent.
This is just one of many inconsistencies that have been found in the traditional concept of God. For a more complete review of them, see Theodore Drange, "Incompatible-Properties Arguments: A Survey" in Philo (Fall/Winter 1998). Theists, of course, will claim that, properly understood, there is no contradiction. What if they're right? What if it's logically possible for the God of traditional theism to exist? Does that mean that one cannot prove that he does not exist? No, for in order to prove that something does not exist, one need not show that it is logically impossible. One need only show is that it is epistemically unnecessary-that it is not required to explain anything. Science has proven the non-existence of many things in this way, such as phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan. Scientific proofs, unlike logical proofs, do not establish their conclusions beyond any possibility of doubt. But they are proofs nonetheless, for they establish their conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt and that is all that is needed to justify them.
Phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan are theoretical entities that were postulated in order to explain various phenomena. Phlogiston was postulated to explain heat, the luminiferous ether was postulated to explain the propagation of light waves through empty space, and Vulcan was postulated to explain the perturbations in the orbit of Mercury. Science has shown, however, that these phenomena can be explained without invoking these entities. By demonstrating that these entities are not needed to explain anything, science has proven that they do not exist.
God is a theoretical entity that is postulated by theists to explain various phenomena, such as the origin of the universe, the design of the universe, and the origin of living things. Modern science, however, can explain all of these phenomena without postulating the existence of God.1 In the words of Laplace, science has no need of that hypothesis.2 By demonstrating that God is not needed to explain anything, science has proven that there is no more reason to believe in the existence of God than to believe in the existence of phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, or Vulcan. This may explain why more than 90% of the world's top scientists disbelieve or doubt the existence of God.3
Scientists prefer natural explanations to supernatural ones, not because of any metaphysical bias on their part, but because natural explanations produce more understanding than supernatural ones. As Plato realized, to say that God did it is not to explain anything, but simply to offer an excuse for not having an explanation.4
The goodness of an explanation is determined by how much understanding it produces, and the amount of understanding produced by an explanation is determined by how well it systematizes and unifies our knowledge. The extent to which an explanation systematizes and unifies our knowledge can be measured by various criteria of adequacy such as simplicity (the number of assumptions made), scope (the types of phenomena explained), conservatism (fit with existing theory), and fruitfulness (ability to make successful novel predictions).
Supernatural explanations are inherently inferior to natural ones because they do not meet the criteria of adequacy as well. For example, they are usually less simple because they assume the existence of at least one additional type of entity. They usually have less scope because they don't explain how the phenomena in question are produced and thus they raise more questions than they answer. They are usually less conservative because they imply that certain natural laws have been violated. And they are usually less fruitful because they don't make any novel predictions. That is why scientists avoid them.
The realization that the traditional God of theism is not needed to explain anything-that there is nothing for him to do-has led a number of theologians to call for the rejection of this notion of god. In Why Believe in God? Michael Donald Goulder argues that the only intellectually respectable position on the god question is atheism.5 In Why Christianity Must Change or Die, Reverend Spong, former Episcopal Bishop of New Jersey, argues that the traditional theistic conception of God must be replaced by one grounded in human relationships and concerns.6 Both agree with Stephen J. Gould that religion should not be in the business of trying to explain the world.7
What if there was no plausible natural explanation for some phenomena? Would that justify the claim that god caused it? No, for our inability to provide a natural explanation may simply be due to our ignorance of the operative natural forces. Many phenomena that were once attributed to supernatural beings such as earthquakes, volcanoes, and disease can now be explained in purely natural terms. As St. Augustine realized, apparent miracles are not contrary to nature but contrary to our knowledge of nature.8
Given the inherent inferiority of supernatural explanations and the incompleteness of our knowledge, theists would be justified in offering a supernatural explanation for a phenomenon only if they could prove that it is in principle impossible to provide a natural explanation of it. In other words, to undermine the scientific proof for the non-existence of god, theists have to prove an unrestricted negative, namely, that no natural explanation of a phenomenon will be found. And that, I believe, is an unrestricted negative that no theist will ever be able to prove.
Notes
1. See, for example, Richard Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbable (New York: W.W. Norton, 1996); Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1998); Lee Smolin, The Life of the Cosmos (London: Oxford, 1997).
2. When the French physicist Pierre Simon de Laplace explained his theory of the universe to Napoleon, Napoleon is said to have asked, "Where does God fit into your theory?" to which Laplace replied, "I have no need of that hypothesis."
3. E. J. Larson and L. Witham, "Leading Scientists Still Reject God," Nature 394 (July 23, 1998).
4. Plato, Cratylus, 426 a.
5. Michael Donald Goulder, Why Believe in God? (London: SCM Press, 1983).
6. John Shelby Spong, Why Christianity Must Change or Die (San Francisco: Harper, 1999).
7. Stephen J. Gould, Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life (New York: Ballantine, 1999).
8. St. Augustine, The City of God, XXI, 8.
DeletedUser10480
dginc...you are in danger of making sense.
Please desist at once...
Please desist at once...
DeletedUser
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I think even JR and Hellstrome would find that humorous. Obviously, time has no need for beginning and end. Planet earth, and the organisms therein, do.
If gizmo would have posted that much from an article, we would have all railed on him with no end. However, I will say that was a bit much.
Even though I have a strong belief system, I can always see the argument from the other person's view point. I can even tell you what belief system(s) I would have if certain facts weren't true. What was just said in the quoted paragraph is utter nonsense. You cannot prove your point by turning to an example which is only similar because you used similar words.
Let's examine the comparison:
No supreme number because 1 can always be added.
No supreme being because power can always be added.
The supposed fact that "power can always be added" is unproved. I do believe that it is unreasonable to assume that it is true.
Use a dictionary. "Perfect" does not mean that you give everybody everything. If we say that someone has a "perfect" personality, we mean that they are perfectly balanced. They respond perfectly to every situation.
I cannot believe what I just read. Does that say that science has demonstrated that God is not needed? I don't even think that I have to respond to that! I do believe the article did say that science hasn't come up with all the answers yet.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Umm, it is actually mathematically proven (wherein "Power" is numerically represented). The demonstration of +1 is a reasonable comparative.
And yet, you would dispute to the end of the Earth if someone were to argue that God is imperfect. No, sorry Justin, the Bible definition, and the commonly represented definition of God is that He is perfect, in every sense of the word. It is, in fact, the fallacious reasoning in which God is presented as an absolute.
No, you misinterpreted what he wrote (or intentionally redefined what he wrote). He said, very clearly, that God is not needed, "to explain anything."
In this, I would disagree, only in the respect that "need," in this context, is subjective. There has never been a "need" for God as a catchall explanation for anything, merely a want. The expansion and development of scientific methods has not changed this. Instead, what has changed is the amount of information available, through scientific discovery that has been (and continues to be) presented, which firmly debunks Religious postulations, thereby demonstrating that a literal interpretation of the Bible, Qu'ran, Talmed, etc, is simply --- wrong.
This, as you can see, differs substantially from your interpretation of what was presented by dgincc. Be careful, as those sunglasses you like to wear, however cool they may look, are tinting your comprehension of what you read.
DeletedUser
Its not really a bible question but more of a in general one. The more I think about these sorts of things the more confusing it gets. Im a thinking person and i compare or at least try to science and religion. The part I don't understand is what truly created everything? In terms of the bible god did. But thinking outside of that what did. What created the atoms the molecules and the elements that supposedly caused all this. There might be an answer for this I don't know but ive always wondered from a non religious standpoint is what created these things.
DeletedUser
I understand that this is what he said. I, however, believe that there is only so much power to have.
Because God is perfectly just does not mean that we are all going to hell. Just because He is perfectly merciful does not mean that we'll all "get out of jail free." The article's definition of "perfect" is ridiculous and NOBODY believes that.
I says, very clearly:
A literal interpretation of the Bible has never been debunked. I don't think we can argue that here without straying into the creation vs. evolution debate.
DeletedUser
Ah, so you are then indicating that God is limited. My my, that opens up a can of worms.
You're still not understanding. Abandon your assertions and take some time to read what was previously posted, because you're arguing a straw man. I.e., you're not arguing the point before you, but one you created out of thin air.
Umm, parts of the Bible have, indeed, been debunked. If you're going to go for a literal interpretation of the Bible, you can't readily pick and choose. Therefore, by partial debunk, a literal interpretation of the Bible has, indeed, been debunked.
DeletedUser
Ah, so you are then indicating that God is limited. My my, that opens up a can of worms.
No, I am saying that there is only so much power to have. I do believe that God has all of it there is to have.
I'm arguing his misperception of God.
I'm listening.
DeletedUser
That would be the definition of finite. I.e., limited.
DeletedUser
It is not limited if there is nothing more to achieve.
DeletedUser
Ah, but how do you know there is nothing more to achieve?
DeletedUser
Because the bible tells him so.
Do we honestly need to go there?
Can't we just all agree that religion is bullcrap and be done with it.
DeletedUser1121
Can someone explain to me what the bible is trying to say in the story about Jesus walking over water? I know most of the stories in the bible have some kind of moral, i just don't get this one.
- Status