One small point for even god to consider

Opethian · May 10, 2006

So where is "Earth #2"? There are MANY uniques in science... especially in archeology and paleontology. How are you going to "test" what caused trilobites to become extinct

In archeology and paleontology we can only work with what we find, which is only a very small part of what there actually is. The same goes for space research. Just because we haven't found any other planets with intelligent life yet doesn't mean that we won't. We can only observe a very small part, and research an even tinier part of the universe because our technology limits us. We can't test what caused trilobites to become extinct, we can only make hypothesises from the evidence that is available. If the evidence that is available is insufficient to draw an accurate conclusion, then the hypothesis will remain a hypothesis until more evidence is found. You seem to think that science should be able to explain everything without any prerequisites. Science needs information to work with before it can come to conclusions, in sharp contrast with religion, which draws conclusions before it even has any information.

"God of the Gaps" has been used condescendingly for YEARS. "Just a myth" or a wink as we talk about those unenlightened people who don't worship science.

The fact remains that an enormous amount of things that used to be explained by something spiritual, have now been explained and described by science. The opposite doesn't occur. The gaps where god can jump in are becoming smaller and smaller, while our scientifical knowledge and understanding is ever increasing. Now where do you think that puts us if we put the limit of time to the infinite?

There is an equal "Science of the Gaps"...

The gaps of science, although I would rather call it gaps of knowledge, are getting smaller and smaller.

at one time the scientific world told us there were but four elements: Earth, air fire and water. These same people probably were just as SMUG and CONDESCENDING in their outlook towards others.

How do you know? What was their evidence for there being only four elements? I don't see how you could ever call this science...

They were confident that just as they were able to conquer figuring out these four elements that all things (including life) would be explained by science.

What you're talking about is not actual science. Just ancient speculation, closer to religion than actual science. Do you have any examples where people actually used the scientific method?

I don't discount science as I use it everyday. I just don't worship as the ONLY game in town. Science has it's position, just as God has his. I don't reject science as you reject God... but apparently because I don't fully rely on science to live each and every moment you contend that I reject it. Sounds like a cult to me!

I'm not saying that you reject it. It's just ridiculous to call atheism a religion, because of the reasons in my previous posts.

I have as MUCH evidence that they will never deduce the full mystery of life as you have that they WILL. Herein is faith, my dear Tiberius. Yours in the in the Science of the Gaps, and mine is in the almighty God.

Well then howcome are the gaps where god can jump in getting smaller, while our scientifical knowledge is getting larger? Any logical person should be able to see that the evidence is much in favor for science eventually explaining almost everything (everything in the limit of time to infinity), if given enough time to develop.

Oooo, now that you ask...

Genesis 1:11 Then God said...

Do you have any "Scientific evidence" to debunk this? Please trot it out so we all can be enlightened. Don't worry, I can wait.

Wow, you can quote fictional literature! How about you debunk all of the other holy books, or in fact, even the Silmarillion

?

Au contraire. The term was coined to bolster the faith of those who would worship Science. God is not against Science. Why is YOUR science so set against God? The term DRIPS with condescension, superiority and sarcasm. If that's the type of "thinking person" you want to be, by all means go for it. It's a time honored tradition to pigeonhole and to label groups who don't believe as you do.

It's just a term to point to the simple fact that as science makes progress, there are less and less things that can be explained by imaginary spiritual ideas. It's not condescending, superior or sarcastic in any way.

So, you can not test science like you can test religion either. Big whoop! Stop comparing apples to oranges. You can't test history like you can test science either. Double big whoop! You CAN'T see who is buried in Grant's tomb, now can you? So all you have is faith!

You simply can't test religion. But when science discovers something that explains something that used to be explained by something spiritual, it's only logical to dismiss the spiritual, since it is unfounded, while science is founded. And I really can't see how you can possibly come to the conclusion that all we have is faith. We don't make statements without evidence, we state that we don't know something until we find evidence from which we can draw conclusions. As we gain more evidence, we can draw more accurate conclusions, but we always make those conclusions which we logically form from the evidence we have, without bias. Religion makes conclusions without evidence, which takes faith. Saying we don't know something yet, or that we think "this might have happened" based on the evidence we have so far, is not faith either, because of the fact we know how much evidence we have, and we know, based on the amount of evidence, what the chances are of being wrong or right with our conclusion.

Herein is the problem... you want to "test" religion as a science. It's not a science. Why don't you test an orange like it's a computer. What??? You can't get it to complete a POST? Better replace the motherboard in that orange!

We don't want to test religion, we just don't want people to label atheism as a religion, when it is in fact the very definition of not having a religion at all.

Only a fool thinks that they do not have ANY faith.

When concerning a choice between believing in something which has no evidence to support it at all, and not believing in it, I'm 100% sure I don't need any faith at all.

Opethian · May 10, 2006

For those who think that Science has ALL of the answers (or will have), please present us with proof that there is no God.

Show us that you have more than just "faith" in science.

I don't think science has all of the answers yet, obviously, but I am determined that science would once have all the answers, if it would have an infinite time to develop. This is the only logical conclusion to form given the past developments and evidence available.
On top of that, there is no need for us to prove a negative to show we don't need faith to not believe in something, because like I said, in that case, everybody would have an infinite amount of religions.

s2a · May 10, 2006

NetDoc said:
For those who think that Science has ALL of the answers (or will have), please present us with proof that there is no God.

This request actually conjoins nicely with another (revived!) thread, that asks of the believer what (as yet unmet/unprovided) evidence would prove sufficient (or compelling) enough to no longer believe in (a) God(s)?

Do you believe that there is a scientific methodology, or some bit of confirming evidence/data that would or could remove all reasonable doubts from your mind that your God is not veritable, or doesn't exist?

If you believe that there is some mechanism/means by which to falsify/invalidate a claim/belief in your God, then what is it? What test of your hypothesis (that "God exists") do you suggest science can/should pursue/investigate? Every valid hypothesis, every accepted theory has some mechanism of falsification inherent in it's premise.

If there is some "missing" evidence that you could specify as being acceptable "disproof" of your God? If so, what is it? Since science can only follow where the evidence leads (or what it suggests), hows about illustrating what qualitative evidence of disproof would "look" like, or at least where it might be expected to be uncovered.

These are not unreasonable requests, nor do they place any burden upon the believer in "proving" that their god does exist.

If you can neither suggest the mechanism, nor name/qualify any particular evidence that would - to your satisfaction, beyond reasonable doubt - provide acceptable and compelling disproof of a claimed god, then why make the request for scientific disproof of your claim in the first place?

If you do not believe that any disproof is possible...then you are simply proposing an invalid theory, and operating purely from a position of faith.

You of course, retain the luxury of such a validating perspective.

Science does not.

muichimotsu · May 10, 2006

So in a shorter manner, you're stating that even religion has a scientific methodology behind it and thusly people can only substantiate it through specific evidence or merely through their own "faith"? Or am I still missing your idea about a relationship between science and religion? That science is in a way a necessary companion to religious dialogue and vice versa in proving religious claims of validity without the mere substantiation of beliefs by personal experience and belief?

s2a · May 10, 2006

muichimotsu said:
So in a shorter manner, you're stating that even religion has a scientific methodology behind it and thusly people can only substantiate it through specific evidence or merely through their own "faith"? Or am I still missing your idea about a relationship between science and religion? That science is in a way a necessary companion to religious dialogue and vice versa in proving religious claims of validity without the mere substantiation of beliefs by personal experience and belief?

I'm going to assume for the moment that this was directed towards my last post ;-)

I'm afraid that you have shortened things a tad much, to the point of overlooking them altogether.

Science has no "relationship" with religion as far as I understand. This simple fact seems to trouble some people of faith. Natural explanations of phenomena that do not require (or make no mention of) some supernatural cause/effect attachment(s), apparently are "in denial", or "anti-(their)god", or a "cult/religion" unto itself. Science is silent regarding any deity (however, scientists readily retain their own faith-based beliefs).

Oddly enough, (some) religion(s) often looks to science as validation of their claims of supernaturalistic cause/effect events/miracles.
[Ironic that the Catholic Church, when seeking to "prove" some sort of "healing miracle", relies in part upon the science of modern medicine to validate whether or not a claimed miracle is truly miraculous - as in, defying current medical/scientific explanation].

From the YEC theorists; to the many claimants to discovery of Noah's Ark; to "debunkers" of evolution/big bang theories, and; the recent proponents of "Intelligent Design" - all in some shape, form, or fashion - attempt to (albeit selectively) validate their faith-based claims (or repudiate other scientific discoveries/conclusions) through scientific means/methods.

Science requires no "faith" in supernaturalistic attachments to function as it does.

Why would religion then need science to validate it's faith-based claims? I don't know.

Reread my post once more (if you please). You'll note that my offered rebuttal was to a submitted challenge that called upon science to summarily disprove (the existence of) God. If a person of faith seeks to employ science to disprove the verity (ie, the hypothesis that a god does exist) of their god, it's really not too much to ask of the challenger what would constitute conclusive disproof or falsification of their own hypothesis. If they can offer none, it's not a valid hypothesis to begin with.

Make sense now that I've re-lengthened things a bit? ;-)

Scuba Pete · May 10, 2006

Opethian said:
Just because we haven't found any other planets with intelligent life yet doesn't mean that we won't.

I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.

Opethian said:
The fact remains that an enormous amount of things that used to be explained by something spiritual, have now been explained and described by science.

The very same can be said about scientific principles.

Opethian said:
The opposite doesn't occur. The gaps where god can jump in are becoming smaller and smaller, while our scientifical knowledge and understanding is ever increasing. Now where do you think that puts us if we put the limit of time to the infinite?

God need not jump through gaps like some circus poodle for your amusement. Science merely describes processes that God created. Because you can describe how an engine is made does not follow that it was NOT created. Please... use science to disprove God. I Triple Dog Dare you!

Opethian said:
The gaps of science, although I would rather call it gaps of knowledge, are getting smaller and smaller.

Yet the more we understand, the more we realize that we don't understand a whole lot.

Opethian said:
How do you know? What was their evidence for there being only four elements? I don't see how you could ever call this science...

Denial: Not just another river in Egypt. What was it then? Religion? Please.

Moses went to Pharaoh U. He was taught to smear a cut with horse manure. There was NO rationality behind the cleanliness laws, but if such were followed it has been argued that the Black Plague would not have occurred.

Opethian said:
I'm not saying that you reject it. It's just ridiculous to call atheism a religion, because of the reasons in my previous posts.

Whats the matter? Don't want to be pigeon holed? Welcome to reality. Atheism is the religion of denying the existence of God.

Opethian said:
Any logical person should be able to see

Again the condescension. Because I believe in God I am not a logical person. Thanks for the biased opinion.

Opethian said:
You simply can't test religion. (edit) We don't want to test religion,

I test my beliefs each and every day.

Opethian said:
we just don't want people to label atheism as a religion, when it is in fact the very definition of not having a religion at all.

Why deny reality? Many people worship the "Science of the Gaps" and are quite cult like in following it. Are you so anti-religion that you find this insulting? That actually explains a lot, now that I think of it. For you, religion IS a four letter word.

Opethian said:
When concerning a choice between believing in something which has no evidence to support it at all, and not believing in it, I'm 100% sure I don't need any faith at all.

I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.

Scuba Pete · May 10, 2006

s2a said:
If you believe that there is some mechanism/means by which to falsify/invalidate a claim/belief in your God, then what is it? What test of your hypothesis (that "God exists") do you suggest science can/should pursue/investigate? Every valid hypothesis, every accepted theory has some mechanism of falsification inherent in it's premise.

Go create some life. My theism will come crumbling down around my ears.

No what would it take for YOU to believe in God?

mr.guy · May 10, 2006

netdoc said:
Atheism is the religion of denying the existence of God.

Netdoc, at this point i'd not be surprised if your next "religion branding" campaign is tagged onto fans of "boston legal".

finalfrogo · May 10, 2006

Opethian said:
And how can the same not apply to a non-spiritual process that started the universe?

What do you mean? He's saying that people who deny the big bang theory are being hypocritical, but he simply doesn't understand their beliefs well enough to comprehend their viewpoint on this: that God doesn't need to be created, because he is bound by the laws of the physical universe.

finalfrogo · May 10, 2006

~Lord Roghen~ said:
The Lord does what The Lord wants in the way that he/she/it wants

But how can God--the perfect entity--desire anything? Desire originates in incompleteness. The existence of one who desires is incomplete. If it were complete, one would not desire. How could God, the complete being of light and love, desire anything?

finalfrogo · May 10, 2006

Fade said:
Oh yea, of course, everything which begins to exist must have a cause...except God. Firstly, why say everything if there is an exeption? Secondly, why is God an exception?

No, it's everything BUT God that must have a cause. God is an exception, because He created everything else.

Tiberius · May 10, 2006

NetDoc said:
So where is "Earth #2"? There are MANY uniques in science... especially in archeology and paleontology. How are you going to "test" what caused trilobites to become extinct?"

Once again, the old, "Science can't show it now, so science must be wrong!"

And as for testing what made the trilobites extinct...

We can look at the fossil record and examine the evidence there. We can form a hypothesis based on what we find, and then we can say, "Well, if our hypothesis is true, then we should also find examples of X as well." Then we go looking for examples of X, and if we find X, then it supports our hypothesis.

You seem to have made two mistakes here. You have incorrectly assumed that science proclaims to know everything right now, and also that we can only learn by direct observation. neither of these is true. Science has never and will never proclaim to know everything, and indirect observation is a grat source of information.

Want an example? You find a dead person with a hole in their head. Nearby you find a gun that has one bullet missing, and nearby you find a bullet. The bullet has blood from the dead person on it, it matches the wound in the dead person, and it matches the bullets from the nearby gun. You're going to conclude that the bullet was fired by the gun to kill the dead person, right? You didn't see it happen, but you can logically examine the evidence and reach that conclusion.

God of the Gaps" has been used condescendingly for YEARS. "Just a myth" or a wink as we talk about those unenlightened people who don't worship science. There is an equal "Science of the Gaps"... at one time the scientific world told us there were but four elements: Earth, air fire and water. These same people probably were just as SMUG and CONDESCENDING in their outlook towards others. They were confident that just as they were able to conquer figuring out these four elements that all things (including life) would be explained by science.

And when they did tests to see the four elements, they discovered they were WRONG. Science is constantly being tested, and it would quickly be dismissed if it wasn't correct.

The God of the gaps is simply saying, "I have no idea how it works, so lets just say God does it and leave it at that." Can you give me an example of science saying, "I have no idea how it works, so let's just come up with some crazy explanation and leave it at that"? you gave the example of the four elements, but that was how many hundreds of years ago? let's see if you can provide an example from the last fifty years, okay?

I don't discount science as I use it everyday. I just don't worship as the ONLY game in town. Science has it's position, just as God has his. I don't reject science as you reject God... but apparently because I don't fully rely on science to live each and every moment you contend that I reject it. Sounds like a cult to me!

And yet you include God when science has provided an explanation which does not require the existence of a god. In effect you're saying, "Yeah, well, science got it a bit wrong, and I'm going to add a God to the mix, even though science doesn't need one."

BTW, Science is not a cult. I really wish you'd stop using words like that that are chosen to portray science as an evil cult out to brainwash people into believing the lies of scientists.

I have as MUCH evidence that they will never deduce the full mystery of life as you have that they WILL. Herein is faith, my dear Tiberius. Yours in the in the Science of the Gaps, and mine is in the almighty God. Oooo, now that you ask...

You keep using this phrase "Scienece of the gaps." Do you use it to mean some crazy scientific theory that we come up with because there's no other answer? What are you actually talking about when you say that?

Genesis 1:11 Then God said...

Do you have any "Scientific evidence" to debunk this? Please trot it out so we all can be enlightened. Don't worry, I can wait.

Wow! Three words from a millennia old text with questionable veracity and authorship for which we've never seen the original and is not distinguishable by means of evidence from any of the countless other creation stories of all the other religions you've discounted yourself?

Wow! You've got me convinced!

You can say that God does lots of things. I can say, "And God said, 'Let there be a great amount of money in Tib's bank account,' and it was done, and Tibs was welathy." Doesn't make it true.

Your argument is just, "The Bible says it happened like that, so that's proof!" Do you see the logical fallacy there?

Au contraire. The term was coined to bolster the faith of those who would worship Science. God is not against Science. Why is YOUR science so set against God? The term DRIPS with condescension, superiority and sarcasm. If that's the type of "thinking person" you want to be, by all means go for it. It's a time honored tradition to pigeonhole and to label groups who don't believe as you do.

The fact you find it condescending does not change the fact that saying, "God did it," to anything that science can't explain right now is not a scientific ally valid answer. And your response has done nothing to indicate that the God of the gaps is scientifically valid. All you've done is say that the term offends you, perhaps in an attmept to stop me from using it.

So, you can not test science like you can test religion either. Big whoop! Stop comparing apples to oranges. You can't test history like you can test science either. Double big whoop! You CAN'T see who is buried in Grant's tomb, now can you? So all you have is faith!

I can't see who's in the tomb?

No, i can't get DNA from the remains and test them.
No, I can't examine the dental records and see if they match the body in the grave.
No, I can't examine the records of the time.

All of those things are impossible!

Oh, wait...

Forensics does those things in police investigations. Well, if forensics ever shows that I'm guilty of murder, I'll ask you to be my defence, shall I?

Herein is the problem... you want to "test" religion as a science. It's not a science. Why don't you test an orange like it's a computer. What??? You can't get it to complete a POST? Better replace the motherboard in that orange!

Only a fool thinks that they do not have ANY faith.

Okay, now who's being condescending?

An orange and a computer are not used for the same thing.

When it comes to explaining the beginning of the universe, religion and science ARE used to explain the same thing! I am testing religion as a means of explaining the beginnings of the universe.

What does religion give us? An ancient book with many contradictions, written by people - we have no idea who - thousands of years ago when people didn't even fully understand the universe, and that we aren't even allowed to update.

On the other hand, we have science, which is constantly being tested and updated to ensure that it is always as accurate as possible. In addition, the scientific process has been shown to provide an accurate description of the universe - it explains how light works, for example, meaning we can use lasers and fibre-optics and spectacles. All of these require the scientific explanations of light to be correct. if the explanations were not correct, none of those things would work. When we see they do work, the conclusion is that science got it right.

And yet, not only is there virtually no supporting evidence to support the religious explanation, but to accept the religious explanation would require us to ignore several violations of what science has told us! In effect, to accept the religious explanation would require us to ignore science in several cases.

So, we are faced with two explanations for the creation of the universe (here at least, I won't deny that science and Xianity aren't the only options).

One is constantly updated, verifiable, repeatable and has been shown to give us accurate information in the past.

The other is thousands of years old, has questionable authorship, relies on magic and superstition.

Which one do you think is most likely?

s2a · May 11, 2006

NetDoc said:
Go create some life. My theism will come crumbling down around my ears.

*Blink*

It can't be that easy. ;-)

According to many credible estimates, 5 people are born every second worldwide. This implies (assuming even minimal rates of successful conception) that at least 5 lives are created every second worldwide. Creating life is probably the easiest thing (who knows, it may even be the primary function) that our species manages to effect of it's own volition.

I sure hope you're standing upon a higher, holier ground...those "crumbles" pile up quickly...

No what would it take for YOU to believe in God?

All too predictable evasion and transference of burden(s) of proof of extraordinary claim.

How soon you selectively forget...that answer to that question was provided previously within the thread: ["How to prove God to an atheist (no, really)...]; in which you impotently flailed about, with ineffective rebuttal, deflection, misdirection, and evasion of numerous merited questions directly relevant to the topic at hand. Heck son, you couldn't even illustrate why the mechanism by which I suggested such proof would be sufficient for me to believe was invalid.

Within that premised hypothesis, I provided both the mechanism, and the requisite evidence I would consider as compelling and incontrovertible "proof" (beyond a reasonable doubt) in order to accept/believe in a (or your) god, and thusly instantaneously convert to pious belief and penitent adherence to that "true" god.

Question both asked and answered.

Your turn (still).

Time for you to substantively provide both the mechanism and requisite compelling evidence that you would require (um, I think that was a "double dog dare"?) of science in order to disprove the verity or existence of your god. C'mon. How hard can it be?

If I retain any elements of faith-based beliefs at all, it's resident within the "faith" (call it prophecy if you like) that you will either: seek to misdirect or mischaracterize what has been put before you; you will protest of subtle or intrinsic condescension and spiteful prejudice; you will remain silent, once more devoid of any salient and pointed reply, or employ that favored strategy of "I don't have to take this sort of derision and abuse!. I'm far above all of this!"; you will lend yet another meaningless and moot testament of personal faith that has nothing to offer beyond your own self-validation of belief.

Can you never answer a simple, direct, and easily qualified question put to you?

Not even this one time?

Scuba Pete · May 11, 2006

This flame brings my participation in this thread to an end

s2a said:
*in which you impotently flailed about, with ineffective rebuttal, deflection, misdirection, and evasion

Have a great life.

Fade · May 11, 2006

I declare s2a the winner by a nose!!

edit - s2a, are you like some kinda prophet or something? You predicted his response exactly. Do you have a brochure I can read?

michel · May 11, 2006

Christiangirl0909 said:
The thing is, we believe in God, and we believe that nothing had to create Him. By asking big-bang people and atheists where the matter came from, we are using their own laws of science. They are bound by the laws of science, and they have to answer to those. However, our God is not bound by the laws of science. Do you see where i'm going with this?

Yes of course, but it doesn't make us any less 'annoying' to the atheists; the thing is, even our 'theories' as Christians sometimes go awry. I was happy at the thought that God set the big bang into big banging (ie he dropped all the necessary ingredients for the cration of a universe, set the fuse and retreated, but there are now even muddier waters.

Jayhawker posted a very convincing argument that the universe and all was there before God got to work on it; for those interested, the thread is here.

knight294538 · May 11, 2006

NetDoc said:
This flame brings my participation in this thread to an endHave a great life.

Game, Set, and Match: s2a

s2a · May 12, 2006

NetDoc said:
This flame brings my participation in this thread to an endHave a great life.

"He who fights and runs away
May live to fight another day;
But he who is in battle slain
Can never rise and fight again."

- Oliver Goldsmith

Ody · May 12, 2006

s2a said:
"He who fights and runs away
May live to fight another day;
But he who is in battle slain
Can never rise and fight again."

- Oliver Goldsmith

Wow thats a zinger!

s2a · May 12, 2006

knight294538 said:
Game, Set, and Match: s2a

Fade said:
I declare s2a the winner by a nose!!

edit - s2a, are you like some kinda prophet or something? You predicted his response exactly. Do you have a brochure I can read?

I must confess that I am no prophet, but merely a prognosticator of informed (albeit fruitless) experience (simply follow the link I referenced as solid rebuttal in refutation of any alleged "flame", to understand that my lent characterizations [and subsequent prophecy] of NetDoc's predictable predilections were in fact; accurate, proper, and completely substantiated.

I regret that I provide neither periodic newsletters, nor informative brochures. At this time, you are left but to muddle through my ostentatious excoriations of baseless bromides and banalities within the broad confines of REF (or one of my other favored online forums of debate and discourse).

But as the Bartles and Jaymes (winecooler) guys used to say, "Thank you for your support".

;-)

{Does that date me? Am I really that old? *sheesh*]
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16588

One small point for even god to consider

Active Member

Active Member

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

Holding All and None

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Le plongeur avec attitude...

crapsack

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

Le plongeur avec attitude...

The Great Master Bates

Administrator Emeritus

Member

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

Well-Known Member

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator