atheism = unscientific (reject, beliefs, followers, theist, agnostic)

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Archaeopteryx

What are you, four?

When you can't think of anything useful to say, revert to insults! What a great way to end a dialogue! Have a great day!

[Archaeopteryx]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

I don't think anyone is being condescending, and since i first posted this concept i can tell you that i was mearly suggesting an idea - that there may be as yet undiscovered methods, which could provide evidence for God - i was not being condescending, Netdoc has certainly not been condescending, i think you are reading in things that aren't there.

Maybe you're right - I apologize.

Originally Posted by NetDoc

When you can't think of anything useful to say, revert to insults! What a great way to end a dialogue! Have a great day!

No, I think you terminated the maturity of this debate with this childish nonsense:

Originally Posted by NetDoc

For all you Science of the Gappers... Good luck in finding your Babel Fish! Bwahahahaha!

May you, also, have a great day.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Archaeopteryx

Maybe you're right - I apologize.

Apology accepted.

Originally Posted by Archaeopteryx

No, I think you terminated the maturity of this debate with this childish nonsense:

You apologise for one insult and then you insult me again in the very next sentence. Sorry, but I am beginning to doubt your sincerity! I used the "Babel Fish" as a concept for trying to find the ONE THING that will disprove God. There was no insult meant or implied in my statement. I did not call you any names nor did I imply such. I am truly sorry you don't see the humor in my statement, but I have to admit that I hate explaining my jokes, no matter how obtuse they may be! But hey, have a nice day anyway.

[MidnightBlue]

* * * MOD POST * * *

Please remember to keep all posts on-topic and to refrain from personal remarks and insults.

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Au contraire. The Science of the Gaps is the blind belief that science will one day completely eclipse God by answering all possible questions. You don't see it, because you can't see the fallacy you have become accustomed to.

You gotta admit though that science has done a much better job of answering questions than religion.

When we want to find out how radiation works, did we use science, or did we pray to God to provide the answer? When we want to learn about the planets, do we use science or do we pray? Do CDs work by scientific principles, or by religious principles?

When we want to learn how the world works, we turn to scientific methods because they have a proven track record. There are no technological advances made by religious means. Any religious "advancement" is purely philosophical in nature.

Can you name anything used by people worldwide regularly that gives reliable results that operates on religious principles?

Science was never designed to prove or disprove God: only a fool would try to prosecute that premise. Yet they do, and the religion of the Science of the Gaps continues on, replete with it's disciples and apostles. It's too stinking funny that they just can't see it.

No, science was never devloped to try to disprove God.

Funny, though, how so far it's shown all these things that don't require a God to work. The equations for gravity work fine without needing a God to explain why they work. We can explain why x-rays work without needing to invoke a God.

It's like the Science of the Gaps people are trying to find that ONE THING that will disprove God once and for all. Just like that passage from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy about the Babel Fish:

<Passage snipped to save space.>

For all you Science of the Gappers... Good luck in finding your Babel Fish! Bwahahahaha!

I do understand what you mean by science of the gaps now. There are gaps in the scientific knowledge, and by invoking science of the gaps we are saying that science will definately be able to fill those gaps in.

Still, aren't you assuming that there are parts of the gap that are impossible to fill with science? or do you have evidence? if so, what is this evidence?

If you were to see a babelfish, would this convince you?

Anyway, the reason that the passage you quoted works is because it sets up an internal contradiction with God. God must rely on faith, yet this contradicts the existence of the Babelfish. The babelfish is the contradiction within God, would you agree.

And the reason that it works is because in real life, God wouldn't be so clumsy as to leave such an obvious contradiction laying around for everyone to find.

So if it was to be shown that there was an internal contradiction within your God, would you accept that as your babelfish?

By the way...

Originally Posted by Opethian

Science can't sort out god because god doesn't exist. Nothing in our universe points to the existance of any gods.

Originally Posted by michel

Just one small question, Opethian; Science couldn't sort out ultra violet or infra red rays before science worked out how to recognise them; does that mean that they didn't exist before they were discovered?

Only if you can show that nothing in the universe ever pointed to the existence of ultraviolet or infra red rays.

Suntans and radiated heat from open fires would tend to point to the existence of UV radiation and IR radiation.

Originally Posted by netDoc

I used the "Babel Fish" as a concept for trying to find the ONE THING that will disprove God.

Why can't it be many things that, together, show that God is, if not impossible, highly unlikely? Why must it be just one thing?

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

You gotta admit though that science has done a much better job of answering questions than religion.

No, not the important questions. Science has no answers for why I am here and why I should serve my fellow man. Science has yet to answer any questions about why honor exists.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

When we want to find out how radiation works, did we use science, or did we pray to God to provide the answer? When we want to learn about the planets, do we use science or do we pray? Do CDs work by scientific principles, or by religious principles?

Great. If these are your most pressing questions then cool! But really: I want to know WHY planets exist. Science doesn't go near that one.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Can you name anything used by people worldwide regularly that gives reliable results that operates on religious principles?

Kindness, honor, peace, nobility, self sacrifice, true love, and this list is endless. Did you have a scientific answer for kindness? I can wait if you need me too... oh yeah! Science can't answer my questions about patience either.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

No, science was never devloped to try to disprove God.

But it's amazing how the Science of the Gappers continually try to use it that way. It's the square peg round hole theory of Science Vs God.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

I do understand what you mean by science of the gaps now. There are gaps in the scientific knowledge, and by invoking science of the gaps we are saying that science will definately be able to fill those gaps in.

Still, aren't you assuming that there are parts of the gap that are impossible to fill with science? or do you have evidence? if so, what is this evidence?

Why should I expect science to be able to answer all of my questions about honor and service. In fact science has never seemed to address religion or philosophy at all, much less make any inroads into understanding my need for them.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

If you were to see a babelfish, would this convince you?

No. But it would convince you. That's the problem.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Anyway, the reason that the passage you quoted works is because it sets up an internal contradiction with God. God must rely on faith, yet this contradicts the existence of the Babelfish. The babelfish is the contradiction within God, would you agree.

No. However, it clearly illustrates some of the sophomoric logic used to try and disprove God. That's why it's humorous. I thought that was clear.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

And the reason that it works is because in real life, God wouldn't be so clumsy as to leave such an obvious contradiction laying around for everyone to find.

Assuming that God exists, of course.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

So if it was to be shown that there was an internal contradiction within your God, would you accept that as your babelfish?

No, but I would accept it as my IPU.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Suntans and radiated heat from open fires would tend to point to the existence of UV radiation and IR radiation.

Just as our search for God would tend to point to the existence of God? Great point and I concur!

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Why can't it be many things that, together, show that God is, if not impossible, highly unlikely? Why must it be just one thing?

Of course God is highly unlikely: there is only one of him! He's "Supernatural", which means he flies in the face of our understanding of science. We felt the same way about those wacky UV rays! Go figure!

[Scuba Pete]

Tiberiusand other Science of the Gappers...

One question apart from all of the rest. Do you believe that science will ever create life from scratch?

[stemann]

Originally Posted by Archaeopteryx

Who's closed-minded? 'Dan' approached the situation with an open mind, examined all the given evidence, and arrived at a logical conclusion that the jellybean was bogus; though he is still open to the idea that such a jellybean may exist, continually scanning the skies and listening for reports. 'Sam' received the same bundle of information as 'Dan', yet drew the conclusion that the evidence is incomplete, in an attempt to rationalize his belief that the jellybean, in spite of no supporting evidence, must exist.

Is it logical to believe that the jellybean exists, in spite of no supporting evidence? Is it not logical to draw the conclusion that the jellybean does not exist, based on the absence of supporting evidence?

1) We aren't talking about the jellybean, we are talking about God, for whom there is much moreabundant evidence- see the Vatican's files on "Miracles."

2) The "feeling" of the presence of the jellybean is evidence; for Sam at least.



After this, NetDoc and Tiberius have a nice healthy debate about science versus religion, which I suppose is fitting considering the subforum in which this thread currently resides. I personally think that they are both level pegging at the moment, wih some good points and bad points. Let's see what happens.

There is just one thing I want to add:

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Why should I expect science to be able to answer all of my questions about honor and service. In fact science has never seemed to address religion or philosophy at all, much less make any inroads into understanding my need for them.

Philosophy is a form of non-empirical science. Or, if it isn't, it should be. Religion is a form of ritualistic worship, either society-based or singularly practised.