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

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

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.

Ah, and you know there actually IS a why because of what?

Don't assume the very thing you are trying to prove.

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.

Again, there is no reason to believe there is any why at all.

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.

Let me give you an example of vampire bats. They live in large colonies and each of the little critters needs to drink blood each night. If it doesn't get any blood for a night, it will die. If a bat is unlucky and doesn't find a drink of blood, it will return to to colony and beg for some food from another bat. And the bat is kind enough to regurgitate a bit of blood for its hungry friend. However, the begging bat is expected to reciprocate. If the bat doesn't offer up blood to less fortunate bats, it in turn won't be given any blood when it needs some. In this situation, we can see that kindness maintains the numbers in the colony by ensuring that bats don't starve. This keeps the genetic diversity high, and also maintains that whole safety in numbers thing. Do you see how kindness has demonstratable result?

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.

You gotta admit though that the gap in science where God is needed is shrinking. Even a century ago, there were many things that people couldn't explain with the science of the day, and they invoked God. We no longer need to do that for so many things because we understand the scientific principles behind them.

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.

Religion and philosophy are subjective. They are purely internal things to people and everyone has their own completely unique interpretation. There is no set Christianity. Each Christian has their own interpretation. Some believe in a literal genesis, others don't. There are so many variations within Christianity alone that no two people have the same views. it's the same with all other religions. No two Muslims have identical views on islam. And the same with philosophy.

Science, on the other hand, deals with things that are objective. Things that are external to people. People can't have different interpretations of gravity. Gravity pulls on people with the same force. The rules of gravity don't change according to what people think. Science deals with cold hard facts, whereas religion and philosophy do not. And whereas science is testable and verifiable in our universe, religion and philosophy are not. So do say that science is bad because it can't explain a philosophical idea.

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

And why wouldn't it convince you? I suspect it's because you don't want to be convinced.

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.

I could say exactly the same thing about some of the same arguments I've seen to support the existance of God. All of them, to be honest.

Assuming that God exists, of course.

Yeah, assuming he exists. And a pretty big assumption, i think.

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

Ah, but therein lies the difference. We can test for UV and IR radiation. we can form hypotheses. We can say, "I think that the fire emits IR radiation. So, I've got this camera that is sensitive to IR radiation, and well see if it picks up anything. If I'm right and the fire IS emitting IR radiation, then we should get a big result." Then point the camera at the fire and see what happens.

How, pray tell, do you intend to test for God? We can't just leave it as a theory without bothering to test that theory to see if it is true. That is intellectually lazy, and I have no respect for anyone who does so.

By the way, I feel I must tell you of the one big difference between our views on this. nay, not just a big difference, a WHOOPING HUGE difference.

The scientist who discovers IR radiation from the fire or UV radiation from the sun does not say, "I am going to show that there is IR radiation from the fire and UV radiation from the sun." He says, "I will go and see if the fire and sun emit any radiation, and attempt to classify it." he goes and gathers evidence and lets the evidence lead to the conclusion.

When it comes to God, however, the theist says, "I am going to go and find evidence of God," then goes out already decided on the result, and then fits the evidence he gathers together in such a way as to support the conclusion he has already decided upon.

Do you see the important difference?

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!

I guess you don't go for the idea of the Holy Trinity then.

And if you believe in God, don't you think of him as a neccessary being? Creating the universe and all that? How can a neccessary being be unlikely? After all, if God is a neccessary being, then he is the most likely thing ever, with a likelyhood of 100%! And if he is not neccessary (a viewpoint required if your claim that God is unlikely is to be taken as true to your views), then why the refusal to entertain the possibility that he may not exist?

Don't confuse rarity with unlikelyhood.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

And if you believe in God, don't you think of him as a neccessary being? Creating the universe and all that? How can a neccessary being be unlikely? After all, if God is a neccessary being, then he is the most likely thing ever, with a likelyhood of 100%! And if he is not neccessary (a viewpoint required if your claim that God is unlikely is to be taken as true to your views), then why the refusal to entertain the possibility that he may not exist?

Ah, there is the true crux. God is neccesary. S/he is the neccesary ingredient for life to exist and have any meaning whatsoever. However, s/he is still supernatural and so that renders him "unlikely" when viewed through natural means.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Don't confuse rarity with unlikelyhood.

Oh, I didn't, and perhaps you can see that now. Toodle-loo... I am off to prove Boyles Law and test my mettle against Charles' Law. I love to dive with students!

[Tiberius]

Ah, but if God doesn't exist, then he certainly isn't neccessary. :P

And if you didn't confuse the two words, shouldn't you have said, "Of course God is highly rare: there is only one of him!"

Unlikely means there is only a small chance of it happening. Neccessary means there is a 100% chance of it happening. The same thing cannot be both unlikely and neccessary at the same time, the two terms contradict each other.

And are you saying God is unnatural?

[Archaeopteryx]

- Sorry to interject.

I want to apologize to everyone on this board for the animosity that has arisen from some of my earlier posts; it seems that my debating skills have not been developed to the point where my replies are not based on emotion. I enjoy debate, though it seems that I've more to learn before I jump into it head-on.

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

-- Samuel M. Clemens

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Ah, but if God doesn't exist, then he certainly isn't neccessary. :P

Big if... you should check your font!

Originally Posted by Tiberius

And if you didn't confuse the two words, shouldn't you have said, "Of course God is highly rare: there is only one of him!"

God is a study of seeming contradictions. That's the fun of it. At times it's like trying to figure out a Rubik's cube and you are color blind.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Unlikely means there is only a small chance of it happening. Neccessary means there is a 100% chance of it happening. The same thing cannot be both unlikely and neccessary at the same time, the two terms contradict each other.

It's a conundrum alright.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

And are you saying God is unnatural?

Indubitably.

[Tiberius]

Circular logic! You say God exists because he is neccessary, and then you say God is neccessary, thus explaining his existence.

How can you say that all the contradictions in God support his existence?

And if God is unnatural, does that mean he is artificial?

I honestly don't get what you are saying. You seem to be giving a bunch of contradictiory information - you freely admit that God is a study of seeming contradictions - and yet the fact remains that if this kind of evidence was given for any other entity or event, you would be saying that it could not possibly be true.

And I'm sure that you'll answer that God is above all that, for some reason. But the fact remains that it is circular logic. You say God is above it because he can be a study in contradiction and yet still exist, but it is what you say of the nature of his existence that causes the contradiction. Forgive me, but I see it as people creating the idea of a god, and this creates the contradictions, and they have to invent a way for God to bypass those contradictions. Which, incidentally, I have never seen done. All people ever say is, "God is above the contradictions," or words to that effect. We are told that the contradictions don't affect God, but we never learn WHY.

I don't want to hear "God did this," or "God does that." I want to understand WHY God did this, or the METHOD by which God did that. And that is something that has never been explained - because such an explanation does not exist.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Circular logic! You say God exists because he is neccessary, and then you say God is neccessary, thus explaining his existence.

Nope. God is. Just like a Volvo "is", so is God. We were discussing his essentiality in the grand scheme of things.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

How can you say that all the contradictions in God support his existence?

I don't. I said the study of God is to understand his SEEMING contradictions.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

And if God is unnatural, does that mean he is artificial?

No. Just Super natural.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

I honestly don't get what you are saying. You seem to be giving a bunch of contradictiory information - you freely admit that God is a study of seeming contradictions - and yet the fact remains that if this kind of evidence was given for any other entity or event, you would be saying that it could not possibly be true.

My basis for belief then, must lie elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

And I'm sure that you'll answer that God is above all that, for some reason. But the fact remains that it is circular logic. You say God is above it because he can be a study in contradiction and yet still exist, but it is what you say of the nature of his existence that causes the contradiction. Forgive me, but I see it as people creating the idea of a god, and this creates the contradictions, and they have to invent a way for God to bypass those contradictions. Which, incidentally, I have never seen done. All people ever say is, "God is above the contradictions," or words to that effect. We are told that the contradictions don't affect God, but we never learn WHY.

Its NOT that God is "above" any contradiction. It's just our understanding of God is not yet equal to God. A plane flying through the air is a "contradiction" to those who don't understand aerodynamics. That's not the plane's fault, but their own.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

I don't want to hear "God did this," or "God does that." I want to understand WHY God did this, or the METHOD by which God did that. And that is something that has never been explained - because such an explanation does not exist.

God is funny about understanding him. You have to obey first and THEN you are given the insight. If you aren't willing to obey, then you aren't ready to understand.

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Nope. God is. Just like a Volvo "is", so is God. We were discussing his essentiality in the grand scheme of things.

Nope. A volvo is made. Was God also made? Unless you answer "Yes," there is a big differnece.

The point is that IF God is essential, then he must exist.

But...

If God is NOT essential, then there is no need for him to exist at all.

true, the Bible says he is essential, and it goes on to list the wonderful things he has done (as well as some truly horrible things too), but we can't say that God is essential merely because we accept the Bible as true. I can just as easily say God is not essential because I don't believe he exists.

I don't. I said the study of God is to understand his SEEMING contradictions.

Then you are assuming what you seek to prove.

You start by assuming that God is not contradictiory, and then you try to find a way to prove it. People have been trying that for thousands of ideas, and they ain't had any luck. For a very good reason.

[quote]No. Just Super natural.[quote]

Assumption or fact? If fact, where's the evidence? Anything apart from the Bible?

If no evidence apart from the Bible (and in regards to the title of this thread), then surely you aren't suggest that it's unscientific to dismiss a book that we have no objective way of verifying?

My basis for belief then, must lie elsewhere.

let me tell you something I believe.

I believe that everyone has a "mental map" of the universe. Each time they are exposed to a new piece of information, we place it onto the mental map. but things don't always fit in there. Sometimes the information doesn't fit properly, and we have a choice. Do we throw that piece away, or do we throw away a piece that's already on the map?

I believe that you (not to make a personal attack, just an observation) have a mental map that tells you that God exists, and whenever you find any new information you try to fit it in to that map in a way that doesn't require that map to be changed significantly. After all, people find it very hard to change.

Its NOT that God is "above" any contradiction. It's just our understanding of God is not yet equal to God. A plane flying through the air is a "contradiction" to those who don't understand aerodynamics. That's not the plane's fault, but their own.

But aerodynamics aren't internally contradictory. And the aerodynamics of a plane in flight are expressable with methematics. Aerodynamics are science - they behave predictably. And even to someone who doesn't understand aerodynamics - a caveman, say - they can still figure stuff out that is accurate. A caveman would soon figure out that planes that aren't moving forwards don't get off the ground.

God is funny about understanding him. You have to obey first and THEN you are given the insight. If you aren't willing to obey, then you aren't ready to understand.

What of the people who do obey first, yet aren't given the insight? I was raised Xian, and I believed very much for the first 17 years of my life. Never got the insight though.

When God demands payment first before the product, and then fails to deliver the product, what are we meant to do? I don't know about you, but I stop paying.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Tiberius