Science vs. Religion [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

davelin

05-10-2005, 11:29 AM

I guess it's really a matter of perspective. I'm a Christian and when I read about discoveries in science I ask myself how can people NOT believe there's a God.

I'm currently reading a book called "Fabric of the Cosmos" written by the same person who wrote "The Elegant Universe" and when I read it, I was utterly amazed by the things in it and it just showed me the wonder of the universe and how there MUST be a Creator behind it -

1) How the Big Bang shows there's an origin of the universe and also the moment of creation was a highly ordered event with a lot of information behind it, not just pure chaos.

2) The reality that is spacetime and how it affects our lives and leads to things that is contrary to our everyday experience.

3) The mystery of origin of life on this planet and how it came about. When I see the amazing human body and how it works, it fills me with amazement and wonder. Scientists are still trying to answer this question, a 1999 international conference on the origin of life was described as "pessimistic, full of desperation and frustration".

Pocket Trips

05-10-2005, 11:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
We came from monkeys? Yea, right.

I've never come from a monkey, but put two penguins in a bathtub and I'm good to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

did this bring the image of to nuns in a bathtub to mind for anyone else??...I am going to hell see my fellow OOT'ers there

sexypanda

05-10-2005, 11:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I guess it's really a matter of perspective. I'm a Christian and when I read about discoveries in science I ask myself how can people NOT believe there's a God.

I'm currently reading a book called "Fabric of the Cosmos" written by the same person who wrote "The Elegant Universe" and when I read it, I was utterly amazed by the things in it and it just showed me the wonder of the universe and how there MUST be a Creator behind it -

1) How the Big Bang shows there's an origin of the universe and also the moment of creation was a highly ordered event with a lot of information behind it, not just pure chaos.

2) The reality that is spacetime and how it affects our lives and leads to things that is contrary to our everyday experience.

3) The mystery of origin of life on this planet and how it came about. When I see the amazing human body and how it works, it fills me with amazement and wonder. Scientists are still trying to answer this question, a 1999 international conference on the origin of life was described as "pessimistic, full of desperation and frustration".

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, I loved that book, understanding (or at least trying to understand) theoretical physics has really opened my mind. I'm currently reading "The Mind of God" which is a theoretical physics book written by Australian physicist Paul Davies. He pretty much tries to reconcile physics, western philosophy, and religion, and he comes to the same conclusion as you, that the human race has a great significance in the universe due to the fact that we have the unique ability to understand the world around us. Due to that, he also believes in some sort of greater purpose. Honestly, he's not nearly as good of a writer as Brian Greene. I've also only read a few chapters so far, so I'm haven't really formed an opinion on him yet, but so far the book's been interesting.

Aicirt

05-10-2005, 11:36 AM

I read a book once entitled When Science Meets Religion. Before you make any more comments on this subject, you should read it. It provided some amazing statistics about the big bang theory. Basically it said more or less that the odds of the big bang occuring and life forming from it are so small that a God must have had control over it. It also provides other ways in which religion can be logically derived from nature. I strongly suggest you read the book if youre wanting to do any serious debating about this topic, as many people who think that being pro-science means that you have to be anti-religion have large misunderstandings of religion.

Aicirt

ripdog

05-10-2005, 11:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
We came from monkeys? Yea, right. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude. Go to the zoo. Look at the Gorillas and Orangutans. If you can still lie to yourself about your origins after seeing them, then less power to you. I can't relate to those who embrace religion and believe in God with such seemingly blind faith, especially the ones who I know to be very intelligent. I just don't get it.

bisonbison

05-10-2005, 11:38 AM

Religion says that we live in the only possible universe because God created it.

Science says we live in this universe because we simply wouldn't exist in any universe whose fundamental laws couldn't support life.

The distinction is the epitome of unimportant.

sexypanda

05-10-2005, 11:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I read a book once entitled When Science Meets Religion. Before you make any more comments on this subject, you should read it. It provided some amazing statistics about the big bang theory. Basically it said more or less that the odds of the big bang occuring and life forming from it are so small that a God must have had control over it. It also provides other ways in which religion can be logically derived from nature. I strongly suggest you read the book if youre wanting to do any serious debating about this topic, as many people who think that being pro-science means that you have to be anti-religion have large misunderstandings of religion.

Aicirt

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem I have with that argument is that the fact that there is an very small probability of life forming on it's own doesn't imply a creator. Yesterday I went all in on a A 9 3 rainbow flop with a set of 9s, and I was up against A10. Well the turn was a 10 and the river another A. Does that prove God exists too?

jakethebake

05-10-2005, 11:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We came from monkeys? Yea, right. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude. Go to the zoo. Look at the Gorillas and Orangutans. If you can still lie to yourself about your origins after seeing them, then less power to you. I can't relate to those who embrace religion and believe in God with such seemingly blind faith, especially the ones who I know to be very intelligent. I just don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You will find incontrovertible proof I am right HERE. (http://www.sarcasmdetector.com/)

Aytumious

05-10-2005, 11:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I read a book once entitled When Science Meets Religion. Before you make any more comments on this subject, you should read it. It provided some amazing statistics about the big bang theory. Basically it said more or less that the odds of the big bang occuring and life forming from it are so small that a God must have had control over it. It also provides other ways in which religion can be logically derived from nature. I strongly suggest you read the book if youre wanting to do any serious debating about this topic, as many people who think that being pro-science means that you have to be anti-religion have large misunderstandings of religion.

Aicirt

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem I have with that argument is that the fact that there is an very small probability of life forming on it's own doesn't imply a creator. Yesterday I went all in on a A 9 3 rainbow flop with a set of 9s, and I was up against A10. Well the turn was a 10 and the river another A. Does that prove God exists too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently.

sexypanda

05-10-2005, 11:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We came from monkeys? Yea, right. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude. Go to the zoo. Look at the Gorillas and Orangutans. If you can still lie to yourself about your origins after seeing them, then less power to you. I can't relate to those who embrace religion and believe in God with such seemingly blind faith, especially the ones who I know to be very intelligent. I just don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You will find incontrovertible proof I am right HERE. (http://www.sarcasmdetector.com/)

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm... noone said we came from monkeys in the first place. Evolution suggests that we both have common ancestors. There's a difference.

Aicirt

05-10-2005, 11:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We came from monkeys? Yea, right. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude. Go to the zoo. Look at the Gorillas and Orangutans. If you can still lie to yourself about your origins after seeing them, then less power to you. I can't relate to those who embrace religion and believe in God with such seemingly blind faith, especially the ones who I know to be very intelligent. I just don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if God exists and created life on Earth, that means that they would not be able to evolve? Seems to me that if a God were powerful enough to create life, He would be powerful enough to give the life the ability to evolve.

Aicirt

ripdog

05-10-2005, 11:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It provided some amazing statistics about the big bang theory. Basically it said more or less that the odds of the big bang occuring and life forming from it are so small that a God must have had control over it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know where to start here. This assertion is so blatantly stupid that it's irritating. I haven't looked into the source of the quote, but I'd be willing to bet that they have a dog in this fight. Or never took a college level philosophy course. Or both.

Aicirt

05-10-2005, 11:49 AM

sexypanda

05-10-2005, 11:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I read a book once entitled When Science Meets Religion. Before you make any more comments on this subject, you should read it. It provided some amazing statistics about the big bang theory. Basically it said more or less that the odds of the big bang occuring and life forming from it are so small that a God must have had control over it. It also provides other ways in which religion can be logically derived from nature. I strongly suggest you read the book if youre wanting to do any serious debating about this topic, as many people who think that being pro-science means that you have to be anti-religion have large misunderstandings of religion.

Aicirt

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem I have with that argument is that the fact that there is an very small probability of life forming on it's own doesn't imply a creator. Yesterday I went all in on a A 9 3 rainbow flop with a set of 9s, and I was up against A10. Well the turn was a 10 and the river another A. Does that prove God exists too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I just think it proves that Party's rigged.

ripdog

05-10-2005, 11:58 AM

Aicirt

05-10-2005, 11:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It provided some amazing statistics about the big bang theory. Basically it said more or less that the odds of the big bang occuring and life forming from it are so small that a God must have had control over it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know where to start here. This assertion is so blatantly stupid that it's irritating. I haven't looked into the source of the quote, but I'd be willing to bet that they have a dog in this fight. Or never took a college level philosophy course. Or both.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ive taken philosophy...Ive taken theology.

Maybe I shouldnt have said "a God MUST have had control" because someone could always argue that even with the slightest odds that it couldve happened on its own.

I was simply trying to point out a place in scientific evidence where it isnt near as absurd as many people might think to draw a conclusion that a God exists. Its been a while since Ive read the book...honestly if you care about this subject so much, you should read the book so you understand the other side of the argument better. If you dont understand the other side of the arugment, then you have no argument. Most people who are pro-science and anti-religion tend to not fully understand the religion side of it.

Aicirt

Aicirt

05-10-2005, 12:06 PM

I found a quote from the book.

"Stephen Hawking is quoted to the effect that 'the odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications'"

So if youre going to argue against this argument, youre arguing against Stephen Hawking. Im pretty sure hes had a college level philosophy course.

Aicirt

Aytumious

05-10-2005, 12:10 PM

davelin

05-10-2005, 12:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously you didn't learn very much in your philosophy class, because appealing to authority is an extremely weak form of argumentation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You got a source on that? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

ripdog

05-10-2005, 12:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So if God exists and created life on Earth, that means that they would not be able to evolve? Seems to me that if a God were powerful enough to create life, He would be powerful enough to give the life the ability to evolve.

Aicirt

[/ QUOTE ]

So we are on the same team here, it seems, sort of. I lean to the side of 'No God', you seem to lean to the side of 'There is a God'. Since neither of us can prove our case definitively, this all seems like a giant waste of time. I think that I won't bother to look into your source material.

Aicirt

05-10-2005, 12:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I found a quote from the book.

"Stephen Hawking is quoted to the effect that 'the odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications'"

So if youre going to argue against this argument, youre arguing against Stephen Hawking. Im pretty sure hes had a college level philosophy course.

Aicirt

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously you didn't learn very much in your philosophy class because appealing to authority is an extremely weak form of argumentation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not trying to form my own argument. Im trying to bring forth someone else's argument that I think that not very many people know about and that I think everyone should consider if they are going to argue about science and religion beging two seperate identities.

Aicirt

contentless

05-10-2005, 12:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Stephen Hawking is quoted to the effect that 'the odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you'll probably know that Stephen Hawking, in all likelihood, has a bet going on this just for the hell of it. ALS certainly hasn't stopped him from being a womanizer and a compulsive gambler.

bocablkr

05-10-2005, 12:17 PM

Aicirt

05-10-2005, 12:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if God exists and created life on Earth, that means that they would not be able to evolve? Seems to me that if a God were powerful enough to create life, He would be powerful enough to give the life the ability to evolve.

Aicirt

[/ QUOTE ]

So we are on the same team here, it seems, sort of. I lean to the side of 'No God', you seem to lean to the side of 'There is a God'. Since neither of us can prove our case definitively, this all seems like a giant waste of time. I think that I won't bother to look into your source material.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, if someone who thinks that science disprooves religion fully understands the religious side of the argurment and then still sides with science, then there is no need to argue any further. However most people that Ive talked to about this tend to not understand religion at all when making claims that scientific fact implies that religion is not true.

Aicirt

Phoenix1010

05-10-2005, 12:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]

1) How the Big Bang shows there's an origin of the universe and also the moment of creation was a highly ordered event with a lot of information behind it, not just pure chaos.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always found these kinds of arguments to be amusing. Why would the Big Bang be pure chaos? Nothing in the universe is pure chaos. When a volcano explodes, it's a highly ordered event with a lot of information behind it; when a star dies, it's a highly ordered event with a lot of information behind it; when I throw a flaming bag of crap at someone's front door, it's a highly ordered event with a lot of information behind it. Every event in the universe follows the same universal law and is caused by preceding factors, and so every event in the history of the universe was a highly ordered event with a lot of information behind it. If an ant observed how my flaming pile of crap hit the door and exploded in high detail, he'd be so stricken by the high order of it that he'd assume someone must have planned out the trajectory of every piece of turd.

[ QUOTE ]
2) The reality that is spacetime and how it affects our lives and leads to things that is contrary to our everyday experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose I would have to read the book to figure out how spacetime is used as evidence for God. I don't see how it couldn't easily be written off as another part of the mathematical law of reality.

[ QUOTE ]
3) The mystery of origin of life on this planet and how it came about. When I see the amazing human body and how it works, it fills me with amazement and wonder. Scientists are still trying to answer this question, a 1999 international conference on the origin of life was described as "pessimistic, full of desperation and frustration".

[/ QUOTE ]

I love this one. "We can't predict the weather, so that means it must be God's doing." Theologists seem to take refuge in every area of science that hasn't been (to some extenet) thoroughly figured out yet. What will they say when science does come up with a plausible theory for the origin of life? Should we continue to believe in Moses parting the Red Sea until it does? Stating that science hasn't figured it out yet is not a positive defense for creationism, it's merely a statement that none of us know for sure yet. I agree with that.

As for the human body being amazing, yeah I agree it is. I think a prokaryotic cell is pretty amazing too. Not on the same scale? Well give it three billion years of evolution and see what it turns out to be. It may not be human, but it'll probably be pretty cool.

I realize the arguments in the book are probably more sophisticated than the ones you presented here, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pick it up sometime.

-Phoenix

Phoenix1010

05-10-2005, 12:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I found a quote from the book.

"Stephen Hawking is quoted to the effect that 'the odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications'"

So if youre going to argue against this argument, youre arguing against Stephen Hawking. Im pretty sure hes had a college level philosophy course.

Aicirt

[/ QUOTE ]

This has to be a joke. There's nothing "clearly" religious about Hawking's quote. If whoever was quoting him wanted to interpret it that way, that's his prerogative. To say that that is the only interpretation is beyond stupid. Hey, maybe I will interpret it to mean that Hawking was merely saying that there are near-infinite possibilities when it comes to universes emerging from the Big Bang, so the odds against any 1 possibility emerging are naturally enormous. Nice job Stephen, I agree with you. I disagree with the douchebag twisting your arm.

Jazza

05-10-2005, 12:35 PM

i still don't know what the word rout means

davelin

05-10-2005, 12:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1) How the Big Bang shows there's an origin of the universe and also the moment of creation was a highly ordered event with a lot of information behind it, not just pure chaos.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always found these kinds of arguments to be amusing. Why would the Big Bang be pure chaos? Nothing in the universe is pure chaos. When a volcano explodes, it's a highly ordered event with a lot of information behind it; when a star dies, it's a highly ordered event with a lot of information behind it; when I throw a flaming bag of crap at someone's front door, it's a highly ordered event with a lot of information behind it. Every event in the universe follows the same universal law and is caused by preceding factors, and so every event in the history of the universe was a highly ordered event with a lot of information behind it. If an ant observed how my flaming pile of crap hit the door and exploded in high detail, he'd be so stricken by the high order of it that he'd assume someone must have planned out the trajectory of every piece of turd.

[ QUOTE ]
2) The reality that is spacetime and how it affects our lives and leads to things that is contrary to our everyday experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose I would have to read the book to figure out how spacetime is used as evidence for God. I don't see how it couldn't easily be written off as another part of the mathematical law of reality.

[ QUOTE ]
3) The mystery of origin of life on this planet and how it came about. When I see the amazing human body and how it works, it fills me with amazement and wonder. Scientists are still trying to answer this question, a 1999 international conference on the origin of life was described as "pessimistic, full of desperation and frustration".

[/ QUOTE ]

I love this one. "We can't predict the weather, so that means it must be God's doing." Theologists seem to take refuge in every area of science that hasn't been (to some extenet) thoroughly figured out yet. What will they say when science does come up with a plausible theory for the origin of life? Should we continue to believe in Moses parting the Red Sea until it does? Stating that science hasn't figured it out yet is not a positive defense for creationism, it's merely a statement that none of us know for sure yet. I agree with that.

As for the human body being amazing, yeah I agree it is. I think a prokaryotic cell is pretty amazing too. Not on the same scale? Well give it three billion years of evolution and see what it turns out to be. It may not be human, but it'll probably be pretty cool.

I realize the arguments in the book are probably more sophisticated than the ones you presented here, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pick it up sometime.

-Phoenix

[/ QUOTE ]

The book isn't a pro-Christian book, in fact I'm 99% sure the author isn't a Christian. All I'm saying that is that a strong knowledge of the scientific facts doesn't preclude a religious belief. There has been certainly Christian scientists, cosmologists (Carl Sandage comes to mind), etc.

I think we would agree that the scientific base of facts is impartial when it comes to the answer if there's a Creator in the universe. One looks at it and sees mathematical and scientific elegance, one looks at it and sees mysterious wonder and purpose. Is one more right than the other?

I'm not saying that these things prove that there's a God, just that it doesn't automatically disprove it either. There is certainly room in there for God in modern scientific theories, that's all.

Phoenix1010

05-10-2005, 12:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I read a book once entitled When Science Meets Religion. Before you make any more comments on this subject, you should read it. It provided some amazing statistics about the big bang theory. Basically it said more or less that the odds of the big bang occuring and life forming from it are so small that a God must have had control over it. It also provides other ways in which religion can be logically derived from nature. I strongly suggest you read the book if youre wanting to do any serious debating about this topic, as many people who think that being pro-science means that you have to be anti-religion have large misunderstandings of religion.

Aicirt

[/ QUOTE ]

Another more interesting answer to this statement is that no one knows the nature of the universe. Proponents of the closed universe theory might postulate that the Big Bang occurs repeatedly when the universe contracts back into the original mass. If you think there's any form of randomness involved in any process in the universe (non deterministic), then with infinite time, ALL possibilities will be realized.

davelin

05-10-2005, 12:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Another more interesting answer to this statement is that no one knows the nature of the univerese.

[/ QUOTE ]

I 100% agree.

jakethebake

05-10-2005, 12:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i still don't know what the word rout means

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're serious, which I can't imagine you are, try this. (http://www.dictionary.com)

Phoenix1010

05-10-2005, 12:45 PM

Ah good answer, I had assumed that you were posting excerpts from a theologic science book. Excuse me.

I think I agree with everything in your newest post.

-Phoenix

pokerjo22

05-10-2005, 12:45 PM

It is a rout. The incidence of religous belief is on the rise on every single continent.

/images/graemlins/frown.gif

And for those who are touting the argument that 'We don't understand everything so there must be a God': when you add God to the equation you make the universe less understandable, not more.

davelin

05-10-2005, 12:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ah good answer, I had assumed that you were posting excerpts from a theologic science book. Excuse me.

I think I agree with everything in your newest post.

-Phoenix

[/ QUOTE ]

Yay!

ripdog

05-10-2005, 12:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I found a quote from the book.

"Stephen Hawking is quoted to the effect that 'the odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications'"

So if youre going to argue against this argument, youre arguing against Stephen Hawking. Im pretty sure hes had a college level philosophy course.

Aicirt

[/ QUOTE ]

That merely leaves the door open. Hawking is certainly smart enough to realize that this debate will never be won by either side, not to mention that this quote is open to interpretation. I'm open to leaving the door open, but the pro-God side keeps bringing forth such ridiculous arguments that it's tough to take them seriously.

PhatTBoll

05-10-2005, 12:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It is a rout. The incidence of religous belief is on the rise on every single continent.

/images/graemlins/frown.gif

And for those who are touting the argument that 'We don't understand everything so there must be a God': when you add God to the equation you make the universe less understandable, not more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe to you.

Praise Jebus!

razor

05-10-2005, 01:00 PM

Those who believe there is God look at the 'facts' around us and determine there is a God... Those who believe there is no God look at the 'facts' and determine there is no God...

Funny how what we see as facts and how we interpret them support that which we presuppose.

tolbiny

05-10-2005, 01:01 PM

"Does that prove God exists too?"

Yes, and apparently he hates you.

etgryphon

05-10-2005, 01:01 PM

Aicirt

05-10-2005, 01:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I found a quote from the book.

"Stephen Hawking is quoted to the effect that 'the odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications'"

So if youre going to argue against this argument, youre arguing against Stephen Hawking. Im pretty sure hes had a college level philosophy course.

Aicirt

[/ QUOTE ]

This has to be a joke. There's nothing "clearly" religious about Hawking's quote. If whoever was quoting him wanted to interpret it that way, that's his prerogative. To say that that is the only interpretation is beyond stupid. Hey, maybe I will interpret it to mean that Hawking was merely saying that there are near-infinite possibilities when it comes to universes emerging from the Big Bang, so the odds against any 1 possibility emerging are naturally enormous. Nice job Stephen, I agree with you. I disagree with the douchebag twisting your arm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stephen and the "douchebag twisting my arm" is the exact same person. It was Hawking who made the statement about the religious implications.

Aicirt

JaBlue

05-10-2005, 01:09 PM

Haven't you ever read Vonnegut?

Science is very often religion.

crownjules

05-10-2005, 01:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe to you.

Praise Jebus!

[/ QUOTE ]

At some point in the future, human technology, understanding, and knowledge will eventually bring us to the point whereby we can pinpoint the exact forces and timeline of the creation of life on Earth. We'll know why it formed on the Earth as it did. This in turn will then allow us to look outward and search for other similar instances, using ourselves as a blueprint. This is understanding.

However, if you think it was a god-like entity that just decided to point and create life on our little dingy planet, where's the understanding in that? Sure the 'powers that be' might have some scheme in mind, but how are we to discern that?

Aytumious

05-10-2005, 01:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Those who believe there is God look at the 'facts' around us and determine there is a God... Those who believe there is no God look at the 'facts' and determine there is no God...

Funny how what we see as facts and how we interpret them support that which we presuppose.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't usually correct. It is up to the believer to prove god exists, just as it would be up to me to prove that a 2 headed omniscient unicorn is running the show, if that is what I believed. Believers generally take a leap of faith as the starting point for their belief system since theologians have been unable to prove adequately the existence of god. Recently, the argument of intelligent design has become popular, but again it really doesn't prove that god exists, it simply proves that the universe is remarkable. Stating that because the universe is so remarkable something even greater must have created it is really no different than taking a leap of faith, since the wonder of the universe doesn't logically lead to there needing to be a creator.

As for nonbelievers, the wait continues for any type of proof, if they even care anymore to bother listening to the arguments.

mostsmooth

05-10-2005, 01:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I read a book once entitled When Science Meets Religion. Before you make any more comments on this subject, you should read it. It provided some amazing statistics about the big bang theory. Basically it said more or less that the odds of the big bang occuring and life forming from it are so small that a God must have had control over it. It also provides other ways in which religion can be logically derived from nature. I strongly suggest you read the book if youre wanting to do any serious debating about this topic, as many people who think that being pro-science means that you have to be anti-religion have large misunderstandings of religion.

Aicirt

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem I have with that argument is that the fact that there is an very small probability of life forming on it's own doesn't imply a creator. Yesterday I went all in on a A 9 3 rainbow flop with a set of 9s, and I was up against A10. Well the turn was a 10 and the river another A. Does that prove God exists too?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont remember what the odds were, but they were far lower than drawing to a one outer. They were crazy, crazy low. I wish I had the book now so I could give the exact number. You cant compare this type of thing to any poker hand.

Aicirt

[/ QUOTE ]
doesnt matter what the odds were

razor

05-10-2005, 01:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those who believe there is God look at the 'facts' around us and determine there is a God... Those who believe there is no God look at the 'facts' and determine there is no God...

Funny how what we see as facts and how we interpret them support that which we presuppose.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't usually correct. It is up to the believer to prove god exists, just as it would be up to me to prove that a 2 headed omniscient unicorn is running the show, if that is what I believed. Believers generally take a leap of faith as the starting point for their belief system since theologians have been unable to prove adequately the existence of god. Recently, the argument of intelligent design has become popular, but again it really doesn't prove that god exists, it simply proves that the universe is remarkable. Stating that because the universe is so remarkable something even greater must have created it is really no different than taking a leap of faith.

As for nonbelievers, the wait continues for any type of proof, if they even care anymore to bother listening to the arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why????

Why is a believer obligated to prove that God exists? Why shouldn't the non-believer prove that God doesn't exist?

BOTH have beliefs... BOTH have made a leap of faith...

A major problem with these types of discussions is that the beliefs and presuppositions of those that don't believe in God are not ackowledged or questioned. For some reason these people are considered 'neutral' and/or 'objective'. They aren't.

Aytumious

05-10-2005, 01:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those who believe there is God look at the 'facts' around us and determine there is a God... Those who believe there is no God look at the 'facts' and determine there is no God...

Funny how what we see as facts and how we interpret them support that which we presuppose.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't usually correct. It is up to the believer to prove god exists, just as it would be up to me to prove that a 2 headed omniscient unicorn is running the show, if that is what I believed. Believers generally take a leap of faith as the starting point for their belief system since theologians have been unable to prove adequately the existence of god. Recently, the argument of intelligent design has become popular, but again it really doesn't prove that god exists, it simply proves that the universe is remarkable. Stating that because the universe is so remarkable something even greater must have created it is really no different than taking a leap of faith.

As for nonbelievers, the wait continues for any type of proof, if they even care anymore to bother listening to the arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why????

Why is a believer obligated to prove that God exists? Why shouldn't the non-believer prove that God doesn't exist?

BOTH have beliefs... BOTH have made a leap of faith...

A major problem with these types of discussions is that the beliefs and presuppositions of those that don't believe in God are not ackowledged or questioned. For some reason these people are considered 'neutral' and/or 'objective'. They aren't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. I believe the universe was created and is run by a 2 headed unicorn. Why am I required to prove that it is so? The people who do not believe this are the ones who should be required to prove me wrong. Do you agree?

jakethebake

05-10-2005, 01:32 PM

I can't believe you dicks are actually debating this. Go hang out in the psychology forum.

mostsmooth

05-10-2005, 01:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the universe was created and is run by a 2 headed unicorn.

[/ QUOTE ]
this is crazy talk. there are no 2 headed unicorns.

Jazza

05-10-2005, 01:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i still don't know what the word rout means

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're serious, which I can't imagine you are, try this. (http://www.dictionary.com)

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah i was serious

so there's 5 defenitions, and using context i'm guessing rout means overwhelming defeat

did i win?

Aicirt

05-10-2005, 01:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I read a book once entitled When Science Meets Religion. Before you make any more comments on this subject, you should read it. It provided some amazing statistics about the big bang theory. Basically it said more or less that the odds of the big bang occuring and life forming from it are so small that a God must have had control over it. It also provides other ways in which religion can be logically derived from nature. I strongly suggest you read the book if youre wanting to do any serious debating about this topic, as many people who think that being pro-science means that you have to be anti-religion have large misunderstandings of religion.

Aicirt

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem I have with that argument is that the fact that there is an very small probability of life forming on it's own doesn't imply a creator. Yesterday I went all in on a A 9 3 rainbow flop with a set of 9s, and I was up against A10. Well the turn was a 10 and the river another A. Does that prove God exists too?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont remember what the odds were, but they were far lower than drawing to a one outer. They were crazy, crazy low. I wish I had the book now so I could give the exact number. You cant compare this type of thing to any poker hand.

Aicirt

[/ QUOTE ]
doesnt matter what the odds were

[/ QUOTE ]

so if the odds for the world as we know it today to come out of the big bang are something like 1000000000000000000000:1, then it still doesnt matter because there is no absolute proof?

I know this is not the exact number, and I wish I had the book to give the exact number...however I see no reason why this isnt something to consider.

Aicirt

cnfuzzd

05-10-2005, 01:39 PM

the real question is why can neither science nor religion make evan taller.

having said that, i think this is incredibly un-OOT, but since it is an other sort of topic, i guess it makes sense. My only real problem with this is why people still bother to have these conversations. They are the epitome of excersizes in futility. I would have a higher degree of success in convincing that gorie chick to ditch her boyfriend so i can sexually abuse her than proving to all the religious pawns how their mindless belief in archaic mythology is nothing more than an psychologicaly masturbatory excersize in social control.

peace

john nickle

Aytumious

05-10-2005, 01:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I read a book once entitled When Science Meets Religion. Before you make any more comments on this subject, you should read it. It provided some amazing statistics about the big bang theory. Basically it said more or less that the odds of the big bang occuring and life forming from it are so small that a God must have had control over it. It also provides other ways in which religion can be logically derived from nature. I strongly suggest you read the book if youre wanting to do any serious debating about this topic, as many people who think that being pro-science means that you have to be anti-religion have large misunderstandings of religion.

Aicirt

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem I have with that argument is that the fact that there is an very small probability of life forming on it's own doesn't imply a creator. Yesterday I went all in on a A 9 3 rainbow flop with a set of 9s, and I was up against A10. Well the turn was a 10 and the river another A. Does that prove God exists too?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont remember what the odds were, but they were far lower than drawing to a one outer. They were crazy, crazy low. I wish I had the book now so I could give the exact number. You cant compare this type of thing to any poker hand.

Aicirt

[/ QUOTE ]
doesnt matter what the odds were

[/ QUOTE ]

so if the odds for the world as we know it today to come out of the big bang are something like 1000000000000000000000:1, then it still doesnt matter because there is no absolute proof?

I know this is not the exact number, and I wish I had the book to give the exact number...however I see no reason why this isnt something to consider.

Aicirt

[/ QUOTE ]

You could add another hundred thousand zeros to your first number and it still wouldn't matter. I'm sure you do not see why.

NLSoldier

05-10-2005, 01:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I read a book once entitled When Science Meets Religion. Before you make any more comments on this subject, you should read it. It provided some amazing statistics about the big bang theory. Basically it said more or less that the odds of the big bang occuring and life forming from it are so small that a God must have had control over it. It also provides other ways in which religion can be logically derived from nature. I strongly suggest you read the book if youre wanting to do any serious debating about this topic, as many people who think that being pro-science means that you have to be anti-religion have large misunderstandings of religion.

Aicirt

[/ QUOTE ]

I havent read that book but that first part pretty much summarizes my view on the issue. I believe the odds of there being a God are easily greater than the odds that the the big bang happened all on its own and that humans evolved from some microscopic piece of slime that crawled out of the ocean a zillion years ago.

PhatTBoll

05-10-2005, 01:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe to you.

Praise Jebus!

[/ QUOTE ]

At some point in the future, human technology, understanding, and knowledge will eventually bring us to the point whereby we can pinpoint the exact forces and timeline of the creation of life on Earth. We'll know why it formed on the Earth as it did. This in turn will then allow us to look outward and search for other similar instances, using ourselves as a blueprint. This is understanding.

However, if you think it was a god-like entity that just decided to point and create life on our little dingy planet, where's the understanding in that? Sure the 'powers that be' might have some scheme in mind, but how are we to discern that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post has completely changed my perspective, and I'm happy to tell you that I have decided to cast aside Christ, as he is a false deity sent to entice the weak into revealing themselves.

From now on, I pledge holy obedience to the Holy Trinity of Environmentalism, Political Correctness, and Animal Rights. Adherence to the tenets of these belief systems will guarantee success in my ongoing quest for truth, understanding, and righteous bloodshed.

Praise Rachel Carson! Long live Harvard University! Woe to all who oppose PETA! May their undying thirst for Vengeance ensure the constant visitation of Wrath upon the unbelievers, and may violent death befall all who oppose us!

Amen.

mostsmooth

05-10-2005, 01:40 PM

im not quite sure what you are asking, but it happened, regardless of what the odds were.
if it didnt happen, we wouldnt be here to debate whether or not it happened.

etgryphon

05-10-2005, 01:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]

It is up to the believer to prove god exists, just as it would be up to me to prove that a 2 headed omniscient unicorn is running the show, if that is what I believed.
Believers generally take a leap of faith as the starting point for their belief system since theologians have been unable to prove adequately the existence of god.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is where you reasoning is a bit flawed. What motivation do I (Someone who believes in God) have to prove to you (Someone who doesn't believe in God)?

The OP was just stating this fact. We are both observers of the world and we interpret what we observe from our presuppositions. The meat behind science is observation. It the same with faith in God. I observe the world though certain lenses and you observe the world through different lenses.

[ QUOTE ]
Recently, the argument of intelligent design has become popular, but again it really doesn't prove that god exists, it simply proves that the universe is remarkable. Stating that because the universe is so remarkable something even greater must have created it is really no different than taking a leap of faith

[/ QUOTE ]

100% Agree...

[ QUOTE ]
the wonder of the universe doesn't logically lead to there needing to be a creator.

[/ QUOTE ]

For a person of Faith it is. Plain and simple. For a person such as yourself, your presupposition that you see a copious lack of proof of a Creator leads you to logically to just be amazed at the universe.

[ QUOTE ]

As for nonbelievers, the wait continues for any type of proof, if they even care anymore to bother listening to the arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

I highly doubt any adequate proof will be found to change your mind. It is a heart change. I believe God designed it that way because at the end no human can say, "I found God on my own..." As a Christian, I boast in the power of God to save and not in myself.

-Gryph

Jazza

05-10-2005, 01:41 PM

ok i haven't read any of this thread so i may no be saying anything relevent

but there are some theories out there that everything created in the big bang is not the entire universe, instead it's just a sub-universe and there are many other big bangs that have happened/that will happen

and some fundamental constants can change from sub-universe to sub-universe, hence all this one in a million talk doesn't really mean anything

etgryphon

05-10-2005, 01:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
an psychologicaly masturbatory excersize in social control.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm stealing this rant. Please tell it is original or I will be sorely disappointed.

-Gryph

cnfuzzd

05-10-2005, 01:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
an psychologicaly masturbatory excersize in social control.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm stealing this rant. Please tell it is original or I will be sorely disappointed.

-Gryph

[/ QUOTE ]

totally original. Just make sure and give some credit sooner or later so that the pjn fame can continue to grow...

peace

john nickle

etgryphon

05-10-2005, 01:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
an psychologicaly masturbatory excersize in social control.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm stealing this rant. Please tell it is original or I will be sorely disappointed.

-Gryph

[/ QUOTE ]

totally original. Just make sure and give some credit sooner or later so that the pjn fame can continue to grow...

peace

john nickle

[/ QUOTE ]

Bravo. Bravo.

-Gryph

Phoenix1010

05-10-2005, 02:05 PM

What Aytumious was doing was pointing out the misconception of what atheism is. Some in this thread seem to be characterizing atheism as a belief in and of itself. It is not. The title "atheist" announces a disagreement with theism, not necessarily because there is sufficient logic or evidence to the contrary (although there may be), but because there is not enough logic or evidence in favor of theism. The burden of proof is not on the disbeliever, but on he who presents a case and assumes it is correct. Is it logical to start with an arbitrary conclusion and assume it to be true until it is proven otherwise? Or does it make more sense to start with no presupposition, and only commit to an answer that is sufficiently supported? The theist claims that he can answer every question with one answer, the atheist says that he just doesn't know yet. Does he have to prove that he doesn't know?

Aytumious

05-10-2005, 02:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i still don't know what the word rout means

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're serious, which I can't imagine you are, try this. (http://www.dictionary.com)

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah i was serious

so there's 5 defenitions, and using context i'm guessing rout means overwhelming defeat

did i win?

[/ QUOTE ]

Even though you won, you still lost.

etgryphon

05-10-2005, 02:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What Aytumious was doing was pointing out the misconception of what atheism is. Some in this thread seem to be characterizing atheism as a belief in and of itself. It is not. The title "atheist" announces a disagreement with theism, not necessarily because there is sufficient logic or evidence to the contrary (although there may be), but because there is not enough logic or evidence in favor of theism. The burden of proof is not on the disbeliever, but on he who presents a case and assumes it is correct. Is it logical to start with an arbitrary conclusion and assume it to be true until it is proven otherwise? Or does it make more sense to start with no presupposition, and only commit to an answer that is sufficiently supported? The theist claims that he can answer every question with one answer, the atheist says that he just doesn't know yet. Does he have to prove that he doesn't know?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm using this definition of atheist (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheist) . It is a belief system. An active belief system at that. I think you are talking about agnostic (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=agnostic). Which is technically a belief system as well.

I think one would be fooling himself if he believe that he does not start with presuppositions. We all have presuppositons...There is no such thing as a truly objective observer. We can only limit subjectability in an effort to be as objective as possible within our presuppositions.

-Gryph

Aytumious

05-10-2005, 02:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe the universe was created and is run by a 2 headed unicorn.

[/ QUOTE ]
this is crazy talk. there are no 2 headed unicorns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you prepared to be eternally gored by said unicorn in the afterlife? If not, you better reconsider your beliefs, young man. As we all know, the only true path to salvation is the daily drinking of sewer water, which the holy 2 headed unicorn has deemed sacred.

Phoenix1010

05-10-2005, 02:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What Aytumious was doing was pointing out the misconception of what atheism is. Some in this thread seem to be characterizing atheism as a belief in and of itself. It is not. The title "atheist" announces a disagreement with theism, not necessarily because there is sufficient logic or evidence to the contrary (although there may be), but because there is not enough logic or evidence in favor of theism. The burden of proof is not on the disbeliever, but on he who presents a case and assumes it is correct. Is it logical to start with an arbitrary conclusion and assume it to be true until it is proven otherwise? Or does it make more sense to start with no presupposition, and only commit to an answer that is sufficiently supported? The theist claims that he can answer every question with one answer, the atheist says that he just doesn't know yet. Does he have to prove that he doesn't know?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm using this definition of atheist (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheist) . It is a belief system. An active belief system at that. I think you are talking about agnostic (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=agnostic). Which is technically a belief system as well.

I think one would be fooling himself if he believe that he does not start with presuppositions. We all have presuppositons...There is no such thing as a truly objective observer. We can only limit subjectability in an effort to be as objective as possible within our presuppositions.

-Gryph

[/ QUOTE ]

Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith might help you here. Here's a quote:

"Theism signifies the belief in any god or number of gods. The prefix 'a' means 'without,' so the term 'a-theism' means 'without theism,' or without a belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic beliefs ... Atheism is sometimes defined as 'the belief that there is no God of any kind,' or the claim that a god cannot exist. While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism. Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence of belief. "

As to your statement about suppositions, you are correct, we all carry some form of presuppositions. I never denied that. I simply asked which made more sense. Just because we presuppose some things doesn't mean that it's logical to presuppose everything. Pure objectivity is probably impossible, but that doesn't make pure subjectivity a logical defense for anything.

wacki

05-10-2005, 02:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
3) The mystery of origin of life on this planet and how it came about. When I see the amazing human body and how it works, it fills me with amazement and wonder.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I look at many parts of the human body (and other animals), specifically organs like the human eyeball, I think "What a crappy design. No intelligent being would of designed the eyeball that way."

[ QUOTE ]
Scientists are still trying to answer this question, a 1999 international conference on the origin of life was described as "pessimistic, full of desperation and frustration".

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you couldn't be further off. I have created bacterial, fungal, and viral life in the lab countless times. It's not that hard. Every basic step of the way, from lighting creating amino acids to translocation and mutation altering the genome has been figured out. I've made many posts on this in the past.

wacki

05-10-2005, 02:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Science is very often religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its not.

etgryphon

05-10-2005, 02:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith might help you here. Here's a quote:

"Theism signifies the belief in any god or number of gods. The prefix 'a' means 'without,' so the term 'a-theism' means 'without theism,' or without a belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic beliefs ... Atheism is sometimes defined as 'the belief that there is no God of any kind,' or the claim that a god cannot exist. While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism. Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence if belief. "

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, now we are getting into semantics. You cannot have the lack of beliefs because by its very nature it is a belief. The act of cognition forces into existance belief of some kind.

I'm going to post this question to the Pysc and Philosophy people on the other forum.

-Gryph

wacki

05-10-2005, 02:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
the real question is why can neither science nor religion make evan taller.

having said that, i think this is incredibly un-OOT, but since it is an other sort of topic, i guess it makes sense. My only real problem with this is why people still bother to have these conversations. They are the epitome of excersizes in futility. I would have a higher degree of success in convincing that gorie chick to ditch her boyfriend so i can sexually abuse her than proving to all the religious pawns how their mindless belief in archaic mythology is nothing more than an psychologicaly masturbatory excersize in social control.

peace

john nickle

[/ QUOTE ]

beautiful.

It even has a hint of Zeno to it.

bocablkr

05-10-2005, 02:37 PM

As an Atheist I am always amazed at the number of so called 'intelligent' people that believe in God. Most Forums I go to there is a large majority of people that believe in God. I was pleasantly surprised to find a majority of the people here are either atheist or agnostic. It makes sense - in order to be a good poker player one must be both logical, mathematical and analytical.

wacki

05-10-2005, 02:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As an Atheist I am always amazed at the number of so called 'intelligent' people that believe in God.

[/ QUOTE ]

A true scientist thinking in the proper scientific manner can not say God exists or even doesn't exist. The second he does, he is violating the scientific method.

cnfuzzd

05-10-2005, 02:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the real question is why can neither science nor religion make evan taller.

having said that, i think this is incredibly un-OOT, but since it is an other sort of topic, i guess it makes sense. My only real problem with this is why people still bother to have these conversations. They are the epitome of excersizes in futility. I would have a higher degree of success in convincing that gorie chick to ditch her boyfriend so i can sexually abuse her than proving to all the religious pawns how their mindless belief in archaic mythology is nothing more than an psychologicaly masturbatory excersize in social control.

peace

john nickle

[/ QUOTE ]

beautiful.

It even has a hint of Zeno to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ive been feeling fairly zeno-esque lately. I think its the sobriety/non-smoking. Kind of makes me want to hunt out all the people who irritate me and kill them, feeding their dead bodies to their children/parents. Some of my "friends" have actually stopped hanging out with me since i started pointing out how they are all mindless fucks who annoy me. So, my plan worked there...

you however, well, just look forward to my next post...

peace

john nickle

Phoenix1010

05-10-2005, 02:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith might help you here. Here's a quote:

"Theism signifies the belief in any god or number of gods. The prefix 'a' means 'without,' so the term 'a-theism' means 'without theism,' or without a belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic beliefs ... Atheism is sometimes defined as 'the belief that there is no God of any kind,' or the claim that a god cannot exist. While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism. Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence if belief. "

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, now we are getting into semantics. You cannot have the lack of beliefs because by its very nature it is a belief. The act of cognition forces into existance belief of some kind.

I'm going to post this question to the Pysc and Philosophy people on the other forum.

-Gryph

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, my intent was not to get into semantics, but you called my definition into question, rightfully (since it's not the definition used in all dictionaries).

My original point still stands: If someone forms a an answer to a question, and someone else doesn't think there's sufficient evidence supporting the answer to proclaim that it is correct, the burden of proof falls upon the person assuming his conclusion is correct. It does not fall upon the dissenter to prove that it is wrong, and he doesn't necessarily have to believe that it is absolutely wrong; he just isn't sure enough to throw his faith into it.
Edit: check Wacki's post on the scientific method. I was trying to get at that, but you don't have to be a scientist to approach a question scientifically.

Interesting topic here, but I think I'll follow you to the psych forum.

sexypanda

05-10-2005, 02:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most Forums I go to there is a large majority of people that believe in God.

[/ QUOTE ]

A true scientist thinking in the proper scientific manner can not say God exists or even doesn't exist. The second he does, he is violating the scientific method.

[/ QUOTE ]

... unless that's said scientist's hypothesis, but in that case he bears the full burden of proof.

davelin

05-10-2005, 02:46 PM

cnfuzzd

05-10-2005, 02:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3) The mystery of origin of life on this planet and how it came about. When I see the amazing human body and how it works, it fills me with amazement and wonder.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I look at many parts of the human body (and other animals), specifically organs like the human eyeball, I think "What a crappy design. No intelligent being would of designed the eyeball that way."

[ QUOTE ]
Scientists are still trying to answer this question, a 1999 international conference on the origin of life was described as "pessimistic, full of desperation and frustration".

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you couldn't be further off. I have created bacterial, fungal, and viral life in the lab countless times. It's not that hard. Every basic step of the way, from lighting creating amino acids to translocation and mutation altering the genome has been figured out. I've made many posts on this in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

I rescind my opinion on the existence of god. First, the points to consider.

Wacki is a fair and just man. Several times i have seen him mete out punishment and reward exactly as justified by others behaviors.

Wacki suffers from, and understands, the plight of the Common Man. We have seen him deal with temptation from drugs and alcohol, covet the ladies, and deal with all sorts of issues.

Wacki provides us with the spark of knowledge. Probably no other poster has brought more usefull knowledge to OOT than wacki. He is always there with the facts. Omniscence, or close enough.

Wacki understands the basic fundamentals of the universe. Wacki is a smart dude. I think he is even scientisting somewhere. He was a little shaky on quantum mechanics, but ive been ascribing the quantum realm to the devil for awhile now anyway.

Wacki has an awesome sense of humor.

and now we find out that wacki has created life.

Im more than willing to postulate that WACKI IS GOD. I will be forming my church and applying for non-profit status soon.

peace

john nickle

bocablkr

05-10-2005, 02:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As an Atheist I am always amazed at the number of so called 'intelligent' people that believe in God.

[/ QUOTE ]

A true scientist thinking in the proper scientific manner can not say God exists or even doesn't exist. The second he does, he is violating the scientific method.

[/ QUOTE ]

I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified.

wacki

05-10-2005, 03:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
For those (like myself) who don't know why, why is the eyeball a crappy design?

[/ QUOTE ]

The larger the animal, the poorer the design. This is due to long life cycles which slow down evolution by many orders of magnitude.

For the eyeball check here:
http://www.google.com/search?q=eyeball+poor+design&start=0&start=0&ie=ut f-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

The first three links should do nicely. The eyeball is anything but the only poorly designed organ. The human body is full of very poorly designed organs/mechanisms. This is due to a long lifecycle and slow evolutionary rate.

Viruses on the other hand are incredibly well designed and their complexity and elegance never ceases to amaze me. Again, this is due to their short life cycle and extremely fast evolutionary rate. Viruses are the only organisms known that are able to actaully compress their DNA much like humans compress image files using jpg algorythms.

[ QUOTE ]
For your second point, from what I understand although scientists are able to create life in a lab setting, it's not entirely clear if these conditions existed when the earth was formed. Again, if I'm wrong, please let me know (and sources if you have them).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have time to explain right now, the first link on this google page is a decent primer. Too bad it's a powerpoints so it's incomplete. Zeno has posted a ton of very good links about biogenesis. I suggest doing a search. I am pressed for time right now. Normally I would have a good link to post, but considering I do this stuff on a daily basis, I pretty much lack all motivation to do an in depth search for the layman that doesn't understand basic biology, chemistry, and genetics.

Google links (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=creating+amino+acids+lighting+orig ins+of+life+-bible&btnG=Search)

Again, search Zeno's posts he has posted links countless times.

TimM

05-10-2005, 03:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
so if the odds for the world as we know it today to come out of the big bang are something like 1000000000000000000000:1, then it still doesnt matter because there is no absolute proof?

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is not the odds itself. It's that you don't know the sample size.

wacki

05-10-2005, 03:11 PM

bocablkr,

You can't prove something doesn't exist. It's like trying to prove that life doesn't exist on other planets when you don't have a telescope. Good scientists don't operate that way. As for proving god exists? Don't have time for that argument. Too complex of a discussion that will probably never end.

cnfuzzd, you rock!

wacki

05-10-2005, 03:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so if the odds for the world as we know it today to come out of the big bang are something like 1000000000000000000000:1, then it still doesnt matter because there is no absolute proof?

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is not the odds itself. It's that you don't know the sample size.

[/ QUOTE ]

Plus those stats are way off. Those stats assume requirements that aren't needed. You don't go from amino acids to fully functional DNA like the staticians assume. Your start out with self replicating proteins similar to prions.

Prions googled (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=prions&btnG=Search)

Time is precious... have work to do.

bocablkr

05-10-2005, 03:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
bocablkr,

You can't prove something doesn't exist. It's like trying to prove that life doesn't exist on other planets when you don't have a telescope. Good scientists don't operate that way. As for proving god exists? Don't have time for that argument. Too complex of a discussion that will probably never end.

cnfuzzd, you rock!

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you can't prove something doesn't exist you must believe it does exist??? Huh?? How do you know what a good scientist would do - what is your background? I have 4 semesters of Chemistry (including Inorganic for fun), 2 years of biology, 1 year of physics, 5 semesters of advanced math and an electrical engineering degree. I am a good scientist and I can say without any doubt GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

GuyOnTilt

05-10-2005, 03:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Basically it said more or less that the odds of the big bang occuring and life forming from it are so small that a God must have had control over it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a Christian and I hate it when I hear people using this line of logic to support creationism or ID. If there's even the tiniest chance of an event occurring, given an infinite amount of time said event will happen. It won't need ID to help it along.

GoT

Shajen

05-10-2005, 03:33 PM

Prove it.

ethan

05-10-2005, 03:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bocablkr,

You can't prove something doesn't exist. It's like trying to prove that life doesn't exist on other planets when you don't have a telescope. Good scientists don't operate that way. As for proving god exists? Don't have time for that argument. Too complex of a discussion that will probably never end.

cnfuzzd, you rock!

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you can't prove something doesn't exist you must believe it does exist??? Huh?? How do you know what a good scientist would do - what is your background? I have 4 semesters of Chemistry (including Inorganic for fun), 2 years of biology, 1 year of physics, 5 semesters of advanced math and an electrical engineering degree. I am a good scientist and I can say without any doubt GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know what a good scientist would do - what is your background? I have 4 semesters of Chemistry

This is absolutely *priceless*.

Aytumious

05-10-2005, 03:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bocablkr,

You can't prove something doesn't exist. It's like trying to prove that life doesn't exist on other planets when you don't have a telescope. Good scientists don't operate that way. As for proving god exists? Don't have time for that argument. Too complex of a discussion that will probably never end.

cnfuzzd, you rock!

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you can't prove something doesn't exist you must believe it does exist??? Huh?? How do you know what a good scientist would do - what is your background? I have 4 semesters of Chemistry (including Inorganic for fun), 2 years of biology, 1 year of physics, 5 semesters of advanced math and an electrical engineering degree. I am a good scientist and I can say without any doubt GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears you should have focused a bit more on English classes because nowhere in his post does he state, "Because you can't prove something doesn't exist you must believe it does exist." Read the first sentence of his post again. Also, I would be interested to hear how you can prove that god does not exist.

sexypanda

05-10-2005, 03:39 PM

bocablkr

05-10-2005, 04:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bocablkr,

You can't prove something doesn't exist. It's like trying to prove that life doesn't exist on other planets when you don't have a telescope. Good scientists don't operate that way. As for proving god exists? Don't have time for that argument. Too complex of a discussion that will probably never end.

cnfuzzd, you rock!

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you can't prove something doesn't exist you must believe it does exist??? Huh?? How do you know what a good scientist would do - what is your background? I have 4 semesters of Chemistry (including Inorganic for fun), 2 years of biology, 1 year of physics, 5 semesters of advanced math and an electrical engineering degree. I am a good scientist and I can say without any doubt GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears you should have focused a bit more on English classes because nowhere in his post does he state, "Because you can't prove something doesn't exist you must believe it does exist." Read the first sentence of his post again. Also, I would be interested to hear how you can prove that god does not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, that is how I interpreted his first sentence. I did not say that I could prove God does not exist, I just said that I believe it without any doubt. That is the result of a lifetime of scientific study and observation. Nothing I have ever observed has pointed to the existence of God. Science has adequately explained everything I need to know so far. Give me one 'proof' that God does exist???

I appreciated the 'priceless' zing from Ethan but I am not sure what he means. I took all the chemistry courses offered except for Pchem. Got the highest mark on the final of anyone in the University. Does that mean I am not a scientist? Do you need a PhD to be a scientist? Engineers with a minor in the Life sciences don't count?

sexypanda

05-10-2005, 04:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bocablkr,

You can't prove something doesn't exist. It's like trying to prove that life doesn't exist on other planets when you don't have a telescope. Good scientists don't operate that way. As for proving god exists? Don't have time for that argument. Too complex of a discussion that will probably never end.

cnfuzzd, you rock!

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you can't prove something doesn't exist you must believe it does exist??? Huh?? How do you know what a good scientist would do - what is your background? I have 4 semesters of Chemistry (including Inorganic for fun), 2 years of biology, 1 year of physics, 5 semesters of advanced math and an electrical engineering degree. I am a good scientist and I can say without any doubt GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears you should have focused a bit more on English classes because nowhere in his post does he state, "Because you can't prove something doesn't exist you must believe it does exist." Read the first sentence of his post again. Also, I would be interested to hear how you can prove that god does not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, that is how I interpreted his first sentence. I did not say that I could prove God does not exist, I just said that I believe it without any doubt. That is the result of a lifetime of scientific study and observation. Nothing I have ever observed has pointed to the existence of God. Science has adequately explained everything I need to know so far. Give me one 'proof' that God does exist???

I appreciated the 'priceless' zing from Ethan but I am not sure what he means. I took all the chemistry courses offered except for Pchem. Got the highest mark on the final of anyone in the University. Does that mean I am not a scientist? Do you need a PhD to be a scientist? Engineers with a minor in the Life sciences don't count?

[/ QUOTE ]

What Wacki was trying to explain is relatively straightforward. Saying that God, without a doubt, doesn't exist is just plain ignorant scientifically, unless you have proof of it. Wacki was explaining that it's impossible to scientifically prove the non-existance of something, and even provided an example. It's impossible to say that life on other planets doesn't exist without actually observing every corner of the universe, and since there are solar systems zooming away from us faster than the speed of light, this is an impossibility. That doesn't mean that you have to believe that there is life on other planets, but saying there isn't with such certainty is the furthest thing from scientific, regardless of the amount of chem classes you took.

Aytumious

05-10-2005, 04:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bocablkr,

You can't prove something doesn't exist. It's like trying to prove that life doesn't exist on other planets when you don't have a telescope. Good scientists don't operate that way. As for proving god exists? Don't have time for that argument. Too complex of a discussion that will probably never end.

cnfuzzd, you rock!

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you can't prove something doesn't exist you must believe it does exist??? Huh?? How do you know what a good scientist would do - what is your background? I have 4 semesters of Chemistry (including Inorganic for fun), 2 years of biology, 1 year of physics, 5 semesters of advanced math and an electrical engineering degree. I am a good scientist and I can say without any doubt GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears you should have focused a bit more on English classes because nowhere in his post does he state, "Because you can't prove something doesn't exist you must believe it does exist." Read the first sentence of his post again. Also, I would be interested to hear how you can prove that god does not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, that is how I interpreted his first sentence. I did not say that I could prove God does not exist, I just said that I believe it without any doubt. That is the result of a lifetime of scientific study and observation. Nothing I have ever observed has pointed to the existence of God. Science has adequately explained everything I need to know so far. Give me one 'proof' that God does exist???

I appreciated the 'priceless' zing from Ethan but I am not sure what he means. I took all the chemistry courses offered except for Pchem. Got the highest mark on the final of anyone in the University. Does that mean I am not a scientist? Do you need a PhD to be a scientist? Engineers with a minor in the Life sciences don't count?

[/ QUOTE ]

You got a "priceless" because it is very doubtful anyone has the scientific credentials of wacki on this site.

Read my other posts in the thread if you want to know my position on the validity of proofs for the existence of god.

bocablkr

05-10-2005, 04:20 PM

What Wacki was trying to explain is relatively straightforward. Saying that God, without a doubt, doesn't exist is just plain ignorant scientifically, unless you have proof of it. Wacki was explaining that it's impossible to scientifically prove the non-existance of something, and even provided an example. It's impossible to say that life on other planets doesn't exist without actually observing every corner of the universe, and since there are solar systems zooming away from us faster than the speed of light, this is an impossibility. That doesn't mean that you have to believe that there is life on other planets, but saying there isn't with such certainty is the furthest thing from scientific, regardless of the amount of chem classes you took.

First, let me say I do enjoy this forum. I agree that a scientist should be open-mined. I am just stating that I do consider myself a scientist but that mentally there is no doubt in my mind. It is like the Star Trek episode where they go back to the OK corral and they must believe the guns are fake or else the bullets will kill them. McCoy says that there will always be doubt because he is human. Well I just have NO doubt - sorry. Maybe I am a bad scientist. By the way - what are Wacki's scientific credentials, I am a newbie.

wacki

05-10-2005, 04:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I took all the chemistry courses offered except for Pchem.

[/ QUOTE ]

IU has 19 courses in the organic chemistry alone. They also have tons of courses in:

# Analytical Chemistry Courses
# Biochemistry Courses
# Chemical Informatics Courses
# Chemistry Research and Internship Courses
# Inorganic Chemistry Courses
# Nuclear Chemistry Courses
# Organic Chemistry Courses
# Physical Chemistry Courses

You had plenty more classes to take. To even suggest that you didn't have much more to learn is laughable. There is no way any human can come close to learning everything there is to know about chemistry. Also, having a Ph.D. does not mean you are a good scientist. Once of the best bioinformaticians I've ever met didn't even have his masters. One of the better wetlab researchers I've ever met was still in highschool. He knows more then many Ph.D.'s do. He is currently a freshman at MIT.

Letters on paper are just that, letters on paper.

razor

05-10-2005, 04:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well I just have NO doubt - sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that... is what we call faith.

wacki

05-10-2005, 04:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I am a bad scientist.

[/ QUOTE ]

It takes a lot of training to become a good scientist. As long as you can admit your wrong when you are wrong, then you should be able to become one. It just takes a lot of practice.

More later.... time is precious.

wacki

05-10-2005, 04:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well I just have NO doubt - sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that... is what we call faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh

ethan

05-10-2005, 04:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Sorry, that is how I interpreted his first sentence. I did not say that I could prove God does not exist, I just said that I believe it without any doubt. That is the result of a lifetime of scientific study and observation. Nothing I have ever observed has pointed to the existence of God. Science has adequately explained everything I need to know so far. Give me one 'proof' that God does exist???

I appreciated the 'priceless' zing from Ethan but I am not sure what he means. I took all the chemistry courses offered except for Pchem. Got the highest mark on the final of anyone in the University. Does that mean I am not a scientist? Do you need a PhD to be a scientist? Engineers with a minor in the Life sciences don't count?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was amused that you listed your scientific credentials to support a claim which you made in an unscientific manner. Your being semi-belligerent about the whole thing helped, too. You also tried to start a pissing contest with wacki regarding scientific credentials. Basically, you were working on a perfect-storm-esque level of dramatic irony.

That's all I was saying. I'm sure you did perfectly well in school, and at no point did I imply that you weren't a scientist. However, you haven't particularly been following the scientific method in your arguments against theism here.

etgryphon

05-10-2005, 04:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
How do you know what a good scientist would do - what is your background? I have 4 semesters of Chemistry (including Inorganic for fun), 2 years of biology, 1 year of physics, 5 semesters of advanced math and an electrical engineering degree. I am a good scientist and I can say without any doubt GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I have I have taken 9 semesters of Physics, 7 sememsters of Computer Science for undergraduate. 4 years of advanced math, 1 semester of Jazz Appreciation, 1 semester of Sign Language, and 2 semesters of East Asian History. I have a undergraduate degree in Physics and an undergraduate degree in Computer Science with a Minor in Mathmatics. I have a year of graduate work in Software Engineering from Carnegie-Mellon because MIT was my safe choice. I like fluffy kitttens and the color blue. I am a card carrying member of my library, the NRA, Lifetime Gym, and the grocery store. I have helped old ladies across the street. I am a good scientist and a nice person and I can say without any doubt that GOD DOES EXIST!

-Gryph

If you want proof of my credential go here. (http://www.sarcasmdetector.com)

BottlesOf

05-10-2005, 04:33 PM

substittue the words "blow out"

Phoenix1010

05-10-2005, 04:35 PM

Let me end the confusion. Wacki was saying that if you're thinking about the question scientifically, you know that we can never prove an absolute answer. A scientist can be a theist, but if he has no doubt, he's not thinking about the question scientifically. He did not say that you couldn't believe without a doubt that there is no God, but he did say that you can't prove it. And you can't, no one can. If you want to believe something that has no proof, you can, but you're not thinking about it as a scientist.

bocablkr

05-10-2005, 04:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I took all the chemistry courses offered except for Pchem.

[/ QUOTE ]

IU has 19 courses in the organic chemistry alone. They also have tons of courses in:

# Analytical Chemistry Courses
# Biochemistry Courses
# Chemical Informatics Courses
# Chemistry Research and Internship Courses
# Inorganic Chemistry Courses
# Nuclear Chemistry Courses
# Organic Chemistry Courses
# Physical Chemistry Courses

You had plenty more classes to take. To even suggest that you didn't have much more to learn is laughable. There is no way any human can come close to learning everything there is to know about chemistry. Also, having a Ph.D. does not mean you are a good scientist. Once of the best bioinformaticians I've ever met didn't even have his masters. One of the better wetlab researchers I've ever met was still in highschool. He knows more then many Ph.D.'s do. He is currently a freshman at MIT.

Letters on paper are just that, letters on paper.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe there were nearly that many courses offered at my University back in 1979. But I think you are right I forgot about biochem. Most chem majors don't take every class do they? I was an engineering major with a life science minor. I took Organic chemistry for fun - straight A's all the way. You don't need to take every chemistry class to have a solid understanding of chemistry. Organic chemistry really was an amazing course.

etgryphon

05-10-2005, 04:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Let me end the confusion. Wacki was saying that if you're thinking about the question scientifically, you know that we can never prove an absolute answer. A scientist can be a theist, but if he has no doubt, he's not thinking about the question scientifically. He did not say that you couldn't believe without a doubt that there is no God, but he did say that you can't prove it. And you can't, no one can. If you want to believe something that has no proof, you can, but you're not thinking about it as a scientist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very well put. Well done.

-Gryph

wacki

05-10-2005, 06:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Most chem majors don't take every class do they?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, with as advanced as technology is getting, people are specializing in narrower and narrower fields earlier on.

[ QUOTE ]
You don't need to take every chemistry class to have a solid understanding of chemistry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. Then again, that depends on your definition of solid. Normally it requires a person with a Ph.D. to have a solid enough understanding to simply grasp what the questions are that most researchers are asking. So by principle investigator standards a Ph.D. tends to be a solid understanding. It's all relative to what your are trying to accomplish. The stuff we are trying to accomplish in this thread (i.e. human eyeballs are very poor design) can be taught to someone with a highschool degree.

MoreWineII

05-10-2005, 07:17 PM

Ugh.

jstnrgrs

05-10-2005, 08:41 PM

Because there has to be a competition before there can be a rout.

jstnrgrs

05-10-2005, 08:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey Bison, what do you think about racial slurs?

Oh and science and religion doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. Why can't we derive religion from science?

[/ QUOTE ]

most religions i know make claims that are not scientific

IMO science pwns religon

[/ QUOTE ]

A claim does not need to be scientific to be true.

jstnrgrs

05-10-2005, 09:04 PM

I don't know why so many of you see a conflict between science and religion. I hold many religious beliefs (the existance of God, the sinfullness of humans, the need for forgiveness), and science can't touch any of them. Science and religion are not in conflict. They deal with two entirely different things (i.e. science ONLY deals with what can be observed, while religion often deals with what cannot be observed).

I have read about half of this thread so far. A lot of you seem to think that because science hasn't proven the existance of God, he must not exist. This is not the case.

Some of you seem to think that the only way something can be known is scientificaly. If this is you, I would ask you to demonstrate this to me scientifically.

jstnrgrs

05-10-2005, 09:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those who believe there is God look at the 'facts' around us and determine there is a God... Those who believe there is no God look at the 'facts' and determine there is no God...

Funny how what we see as facts and how we interpret them support that which we presuppose.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't usually correct. It is up to the believer to prove god exists, just as it would be up to me to prove that a 2 headed omniscient unicorn is running the show, if that is what I believed. Believers generally take a leap of faith as the starting point for their belief system since theologians have been unable to prove adequately the existence of god. Recently, the argument of intelligent design has become popular, but again it really doesn't prove that god exists, it simply proves that the universe is remarkable. Stating that because the universe is so remarkable something even greater must have created it is really no different than taking a leap of faith, since the wonder of the universe doesn't logically lead to there needing to be a creator.

As for nonbelievers, the wait continues for any type of proof, if they even care anymore to bother listening to the arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't have to prove anything. We're not scientists. You on the other hand believe that there is a burden of proof (I assume you have a scientific reason for this).

Phoenix1010

05-10-2005, 09:12 PM

There's more in the rest of the thread.

jstnrgrs

05-10-2005, 09:13 PM

I'm getting there.

jstnrgrs

05-10-2005, 09:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As an Atheist I am always amazed at the number of so called 'intelligent' people that believe in God. Most Forums I go to there is a large majority of people that believe in God. I was pleasantly surprised to find a majority of the people here are either atheist or agnostic. It makes sense - in order to be a good poker player one must be both logical, mathematical and analytical.

[/ QUOTE ]

and belief in God does not exclude any of these things.

jstnrgrs

05-10-2005, 09:21 PM

Phoenix1010

05-10-2005, 09:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know why so many of you see a conflict between science and religion. I hold many religious beliefs (the existance of God, the sinfullness of humans, the need for forgiveness), and science can't touch any of them. Science and religion are not in conflict. They deal with two entirely different things (i.e. science ONLY deals with what can be observed, while religion often deals with what cannot be observed).

[/ QUOTE ]

Religion doesn't deal with things that can't be observed by it's definition, it acts as an answer to questions (how did the universe begin, how did life begin, why is the sky blue, why does it rain). It just so happens that the only questions it is still used to answer are related to topics that can't be observed. Science also deals very much with things that can't be observed, such as using scientific knowledge to postulate and extrapolate probable explanations to processes that can't be observed (such as the origin of life), while religion very often deals with things that can be observed (please God, help us win the Super Bowl).

[ QUOTE ]
I have read about half of this thread so far. A lot of you seem to think that because science hasn't proven the existance of God, he must not exist. This is not the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure who said this. I would say that since science hasn't proven the existence of God, we can't be sure that he exists, and we can't be sure that he doesn't. It is those who say that they are sure who are incorrect.

[ QUOTE ]

Some of you seem to think that the only way something can be known is scientificaly. If this is you, I would ask you to demonstrate this to me scientifically.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only way something can be "proven" or supported with any degree of certainty is through the scientific method. Anything else is just speculation, and should be regarded as such. You can hold any number of assumptions and beliefs, but only evidence, logic, and methodology can uphold them.

Phoenix1010

05-10-2005, 09:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let me end the confusion. Wacki was saying that if you're thinking about the question scientifically, you know that we can never prove an absolute answer. A scientist can be a theist, but if he has no doubt, he's not thinking about the question scientifically. He did not say that you couldn't believe without a doubt that there is no God, but he did say that you can't prove it. And you can't, no one can. If you want to believe something that has no proof, you can, but you're not thinking about it as a scientist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since science can't prove science, anyone who believes anything is not thinking as a scientist.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're going to have to clarify what you keep calling "science" if you want to get anywhere.

Phoenix1010

05-10-2005, 09:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those who believe there is God look at the 'facts' around us and determine there is a God... Those who believe there is no God look at the 'facts' and determine there is no God...

Funny how what we see as facts and how we interpret them support that which we presuppose.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't usually correct. It is up to the believer to prove god exists, just as it would be up to me to prove that a 2 headed omniscient unicorn is running the show, if that is what I believed. Believers generally take a leap of faith as the starting point for their belief system since theologians have been unable to prove adequately the existence of god. Recently, the argument of intelligent design has become popular, but again it really doesn't prove that god exists, it simply proves that the universe is remarkable. Stating that because the universe is so remarkable something even greater must have created it is really no different than taking a leap of faith, since the wonder of the universe doesn't logically lead to there needing to be a creator.

As for nonbelievers, the wait continues for any type of proof, if they even care anymore to bother listening to the arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't have to prove anything. We're not scientists. You on the other hand believe that there is a burden of proof (I assume you have a scientific reason for this).

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to prove anything. You can believe whatever you want, just as anyone can. If you're going to argue that any answer is correct, however, then you do have to prove it. Otherwise you're not arguing, you're just saying what you think.

jstnrgrs

05-10-2005, 09:36 PM

What I mean is that the scientific method can't prove that the scientific methon is vaild.

wacki

05-10-2005, 09:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Since science can't prove science, anyone who believes anything is not thinking as a scientist.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.crack-pipes.com/crack-pipe.jpg

http://www.genzel.ca/userimages/ally_crackhead.jpg

Phoenix1010

05-10-2005, 09:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What I mean is that the scientific method can't prove that the scientific methon is vaild.

[/ QUOTE ]

The scientific method is logically the best way to support a claim. It's not something that is proven, or can be proven, it is reasoned. You have a claim, you look for evidence or logic that supports it. If you want to argue that random assumption is a more reasonable method than systematically testing a claim, you'll be in for a long (or very short) argument.

jstnrgrs

05-10-2005, 09:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I mean is that the scientific method can't prove that the scientific methon is vaild.

[/ QUOTE ]

The scientific method is logically the best way to support a claim. It's not something that is proven, or can be proven, it is reasoned. You have a claim, you look for evidence or logic that supports it. If you want to argue that random assumption is a more reasonable method than systematically testing a claim, you'll be in for a long (or very short) argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not arguing that any method is better or worse. I'm mearly stating that the scientific method is not scientifically proven.

tolbiny

05-10-2005, 09:45 PM

Methodology and "facts" are two different things.

jstnrgrs

05-10-2005, 09:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Methodology and "facts" are two different things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it takes a leep (or maybe just a step) of faith to believe that facts derived from scientific experiments are corect.

YourFoxyGrandma

05-10-2005, 09:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I mean is that the scientific method can't prove that the scientific methon is vaild.

[/ QUOTE ]

The scientific method is logically the best way to support a claim. It's not something that is proven, or can be proven, it is reasoned. You have a claim, you look for evidence or logic that supports it. If you want to argue that random assumption is a more reasonable method than systematically testing a claim, you'll be in for a long (or very short) argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not arguing that any method is better or worse. I'm mearly stating that the scientific method is not scientifically proven.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sound like you don't know what you're talking about.

Phoenix1010

05-10-2005, 09:53 PM

You're trying to use the reductio ad absurdum on scientific skepticism, but you're getting sidetracked. You can do this. I have faith.

jstnrgrs

05-10-2005, 09:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I mean is that the scientific method can't prove that the scientific methon is vaild.

[/ QUOTE ]

The scientific method is logically the best way to support a claim. It's not something that is proven, or can be proven, it is reasoned. You have a claim, you look for evidence or logic that supports it. If you want to argue that random assumption is a more reasonable method than systematically testing a claim, you'll be in for a long (or very short) argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not arguing that any method is better or worse. I'm mearly stating that the scientific method is not scientifically proven.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sound like you don't know what you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I have 5 PhD's in scientific and philosophic disiplines, so I think that you don't know what your talking about.

wacki

05-10-2005, 09:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I have 5 PhD's in scientific and philosophic disiplines, so I think that you don't know what your talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which ones?

Phoenix1010

05-10-2005, 09:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I have 5 PhD's in scientific and philosophic disiplines, so I think that you don't know what your talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which ones?

[/ QUOTE ]

The ones that don't require you to know how to spell mere, leap, or you're.

Ok, no more personal attacks from me.

jstnrgrs

05-10-2005, 10:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You're trying to use the reductio ad absurdum on scientific skepticism, but you're getting sidetracked. You can do this. I have faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Suppose that the only real truths are scientific truths (those that can be demonstrated by the scientific method)

2) Then statment 1 can be proven scientifically

3) but statment 1 cannot be proven scientifiaclly

4) therefore some real truths are not scientific (or there are no real truths)

OR

1) Suppose that all true knowledge is scientific

2) then statment 1 must either be scientific, or false

3) Statment 1 is not scientific

4) therefore statment 1 is false

5) therefore not all true knowledge is scientific.

I feel like this might have some holes in it, but I still think its right.

jstnrgrs

05-10-2005, 10:05 PM

The ones that are sorounded by

Phoenix1010

05-10-2005, 10:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're trying to use the reductio ad absurdum on scientific skepticism, but you're getting sidetracked. You can do this. I have faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Suppose that the only real truths are scientific truths (those that can be demonstrated by the scientific method)

2) Then statment 1 can be proven scientifically

3) but statment 1 cannot be proven scientifiaclly

4) therefore some real truths are not scientific (or there are no real truths)

[/ QUOTE ]

5 PHD's and you can't construct a logical proof? This one is just bunk. Statement 2 is not a premise, but a conclusion with no premises to back it up, and it's useless. Two of your premises contradict each other. You're missing a statement saying that statement 1 is a 'real truth.' Your conclusion disagrees with your premises. If you're trying to disprove something, construct a valid argument, and then show how the premises are incorrect. I'm not going to do this for you.

[ QUOTE ]

OR

1) Suppose that all true knowledge is scientific

2) then statment 1 must either be scientific, or false

3) Statment 1 is not scientific

4) therefore statment 1 is false

5) therefore not all true knowledge is scientific.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is equally bad as an argument for some of the same reasons, but at least it's a logical progression of premises. Statement 1 is not the premise anyone has started with; no one said that something is scientifically true or false, they said it was scientifically supported, or merely speculated. Statement 3 comes out of nowhere, and would have to be supported with it's own argument. This is closer though. I'll tell you where your misconception lies later.

Phoenix1010

05-10-2005, 10:33 PM

The problem with your line of thinking here is that, like someone said, there is a difference between methodology and facts. There is a difference between logic and observation. Assumptions about the world are supported or debunked using the scientific method. Assumptions about logical methods and intellectual truths are supported or debunked using logic. So your saying that all real truths are the ones that can be supported scientifically is not necessarily asking the right question, because you can't scientifically test a method, you can only see if it makes sense. See?

Edit: you would have been much more successful if you had pursued a line whereby you pointed out that anyone who believes in anything is being unscientific, because nothing can be completely proven. That would have been struck down as well, however. That, and no one cares anymore.

YourFoxyGrandma

05-10-2005, 11:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I have 5 PhD's in scientific and philosophic disiplines, so I think that you don't know what your talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're basically trying to disprove reason, which is completely unreasonable.

Aytumious

05-10-2005, 11:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I mean is that the scientific method can't prove that the scientific methon is vaild.

[/ QUOTE ]

The scientific method is logically the best way to support a claim. It's not something that is proven, or can be proven, it is reasoned. You have a claim, you look for evidence or logic that supports it. If you want to argue that random assumption is a more reasonable method than systematically testing a claim, you'll be in for a long (or very short) argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not arguing that any method is better or worse. I'm mearly stating that the scientific method is not scientifically proven.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a very long time.

Added: Actually, you manage to top it with every subsequent post.

jstnrgrs

05-11-2005, 06:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I have 5 PhD's in scientific and philosophic disiplines, so I think that you don't know what your talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're basically trying to disprove reason, which is completely unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should have seen it a few months ago when I attempted to logically argue that God cannot be described by logic. I don't think I was any more successfull there than I have been here.

jstnrgrs

05-11-2005, 06:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're trying to use the reductio ad absurdum on scientific skepticism, but you're getting sidetracked. You can do this. I have faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Suppose that the only real truths are scientific truths (those that can be demonstrated by the scientific method)

2) Then statment 1 can be proven scientifically

3) but statment 1 cannot be proven scientifiaclly

4) therefore some real truths are not scientific (or there are no real truths)

[/ QUOTE ]

5 PHD's and you can't construct a logical proof? This one is just bunk. Statement 2 is not a premise, but a conclusion with no premises to back it up, and it's useless. Two of your premises contradict each other. You're missing a statement saying that statement 1 is a 'real truth.' Your conclusion disagrees with your premises. If you're trying to disprove something, construct a valid argument, and then show how the premises are incorrect. I'm not going to do this for you.

[ QUOTE ]

OR

1) Suppose that all true knowledge is scientific

2) then statment 1 must either be scientific, or false

3) Statment 1 is not scientific

4) therefore statment 1 is false

5) therefore not all true knowledge is scientific.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is equally bad as an argument for some of the same reasons, but at least it's a logical progression of premises. Statement 1 is not the premise anyone has started with; no one said that something is scientifically true or false, they said it was scientifically supported, or merely speculated. Statement 3 comes out of nowhere, and would have to be supported with it's own argument. This is closer though. I'll tell you where your misconception lies later.

[/ QUOTE ]

Arguement suporting statment 3:

A) All scientific facts must be suported by scientific experiments or logical reasoning.

B) There is no experiment or line of logical reasoning that proves that all knowledge is scientific

C) therefore statment 1 is not scientific

D) therefore statment 3 is true

Jazza

05-11-2005, 06:44 PM

you guys are all wasting your time

the correct answer is Mormon

sexypanda

05-11-2005, 06:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're trying to use the reductio ad absurdum on scientific skepticism, but you're getting sidetracked. You can do this. I have faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Suppose that the only real truths are scientific truths (those that can be demonstrated by the scientific method)

2) Then statment 1 can be proven scientifically

3) but statment 1 cannot be proven scientifiaclly

4) therefore some real truths are not scientific (or there are no real truths)

[/ QUOTE ]

5 PHD's and you can't construct a logical proof? This one is just bunk. Statement 2 is not a premise, but a conclusion with no premises to back it up, and it's useless. Two of your premises contradict each other. You're missing a statement saying that statement 1 is a 'real truth.' Your conclusion disagrees with your premises. If you're trying to disprove something, construct a valid argument, and then show how the premises are incorrect. I'm not going to do this for you.

[ QUOTE ]

OR

1) Suppose that all true knowledge is scientific

2) then statment 1 must either be scientific, or false

3) Statment 1 is not scientific

4) therefore statment 1 is false

5) therefore not all true knowledge is scientific.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is equally bad as an argument for some of the same reasons, but at least it's a logical progression of premises. Statement 1 is not the premise anyone has started with; no one said that something is scientifically true or false, they said it was scientifically supported, or merely speculated. Statement 3 comes out of nowhere, and would have to be supported with it's own argument. This is closer though. I'll tell you where your misconception lies later.

[/ QUOTE ]

Arguement suporting statment 3:

A) All scientific facts must be suported by scientific experiments or logical reasoning.

B) There is no experiment or line of logical reasoning that proves that all knowledge is scientific

C) therefore statment 1 is not scientific

D) therefore statment 3 is true

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly are you trying to do here? Do you have even a basic understanding of logical reasoning or the scientific method. You sound like a 15 year old who got high for the first time.

The scientific method is a method of inductive reasoning used to verify any given hypothesis. "Inductive reasoning is not designed to produce mathematical certainty. Induction occurs when we gather bits of specific information together and use our own knowledge and experience in order to make an observation about what must be true. ... The reasoning process here is directly opposite to that used in deductive syllogisms. Rather than beginning with a general principle, the chain of evidence begins with an observation and then combines it with the strength of previous observations in order to arrive at a conclusion." (http://webpages.shepherd.edu/maustin/rhetoric/inductiv.htm)

Therefore, inductive reasoning, and the scientific method draws conclusions based on our observations, and as we refine these observations, we also refine our conclusions. Science is a logical way to peal away the layers of the great mysteries of life and get a glimpse of whats really going on, but in no way claims to be the only way to absolute truth.

jstnrgrs

05-11-2005, 08:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're trying to use the reductio ad absurdum on scientific skepticism, but you're getting sidetracked. You can do this. I have faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Suppose that the only real truths are scientific truths (those that can be demonstrated by the scientific method)

2) Then statment 1 can be proven scientifically

3) but statment 1 cannot be proven scientifiaclly

4) therefore some real truths are not scientific (or there are no real truths)

[/ QUOTE ]

5 PHD's and you can't construct a logical proof? This one is just bunk. Statement 2 is not a premise, but a conclusion with no premises to back it up, and it's useless. Two of your premises contradict each other. You're missing a statement saying that statement 1 is a 'real truth.' Your conclusion disagrees with your premises. If you're trying to disprove something, construct a valid argument, and then show how the premises are incorrect. I'm not going to do this for you.

[ QUOTE ]

OR

1) Suppose that all true knowledge is scientific

2) then statment 1 must either be scientific, or false

3) Statment 1 is not scientific

4) therefore statment 1 is false

5) therefore not all true knowledge is scientific.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is equally bad as an argument for some of the same reasons, but at least it's a logical progression of premises. Statement 1 is not the premise anyone has started with; no one said that something is scientifically true or false, they said it was scientifically supported, or merely speculated. Statement 3 comes out of nowhere, and would have to be supported with it's own argument. This is closer though. I'll tell you where your misconception lies later.

[/ QUOTE ]

Arguement suporting statment 3:

A) All scientific facts must be suported by scientific experiments or logical reasoning.

B) There is no experiment or line of logical reasoning that proves that all knowledge is scientific

C) therefore statment 1 is not scientific

D) therefore statment 3 is true

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly are you trying to do here? Do you have even a basic understanding of logical reasoning or the scientific method. You sound like a 15 year old who got high for the first time.

The scientific method is a method of inductive reasoning used to verify any given hypothesis. "Inductive reasoning is not designed to produce mathematical certainty. Induction occurs when we gather bits of specific information together and use our own knowledge and experience in order to make an observation about what must be true. ... The reasoning process here is directly opposite to that used in deductive syllogisms. Rather than beginning with a general principle, the chain of evidence begins with an observation and then combines it with the strength of previous observations in order to arrive at a conclusion." (http://webpages.shepherd.edu/maustin/rhetoric/inductiv.htm)

Therefore, inductive reasoning, and the scientific method draws conclusions based on our observations, and as we refine these observations, we also refine our conclusions. Science is a logical way to peal away the layers of the great mysteries of life and get a glimpse of whats really going on, but in no way claims to be the only way to absolute truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I give up.