God is dead...

[The Black Whirlwind]

i have actually evolved. i did not grow any wisdom teeth.

 

[Katzpur]

For atheists everywhere and agnostics like me who reject God anyways what will feel our spiritual lives in the future when eventually religious doctrine will hopefully fade away?

I tend to think of science as the new religion, I expect to see an upsurge in philosophical developments aswell.

I'm curious, first of all, as to why you are so positive that God doesn't exist. Do you honestly believe that every single solitary fact can be scientifically proven? Was the earth flat until it was proven to be round? Were dinosaurs non-existent until someone uncovered the first bones? The fact that believers accept God's existence through faith means nothing more than that, for the time being, that's obviously what He wants us to do. Someday, I believe you'll know that God does exist and that He knows you personally and loves you more than you can possibly begin to fathom. It may not be until after you have died and are resurrected, but you will know. There will come a time when no one can deny His existence.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you honestly believe that every single solitary fact can be scientifically proven?

The question is nonsensical on two levels:

• Science does not prove facts.
• The absence of a substantive scientific theory is in no way evidence of God(s).

You may believe that "there will come a time when no one can deny His existence", but it is a belief based on faith alone. Don't hold your breath ...

 

[DeepShadow]

As was stated previously, this refers to the belief in God being dead, not the actual deity, but belief in God isn't dead yet...is God dying? Do we have anyone here trying to hasten His death--any evangelical atheists out there?

I know one, maybe I'll invite him here to the forums....

 

[Katzpur]

The question is nonsensical on two levels:
Science does not prove facts.

I am speaking strictly of the scientific method as the process by which scientists seek to construct an accurate representation of the world. Sorry if you didn't like my the wording of my original post. All I was saying is that absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absense. What science may seem to prove today may be disproven tomorrow. That's all.

Scientific truth rests in objective criteria...religious truth rests in subjective criteria. I don't see them at odds with one another.

The absence of a substantive scientific theory is in no way evidence of God(s).

I never implied that it is. Again, all that I said is that the fact that you cannot prove that God exists is not proof that He doesn't. Try not to put words into my mouth.

You may believe that "there will come a time when no one can deny His existence", but it is a belief based on faith alone.

And this is the only legitimate statement you made. You are right. It's a belief based on faith alone. And it's only my opinion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

All I was saying is that absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absense.

The absence of evidence is always evidence of absence, with the significance of that evidence being a function of the significance of the absence.

Scientific truth rests in objective criteria...religious truth rests in subjective criteria.

What is that "subjective criteria", and how might one reliably distinguish this so-called "religious truth" from delusion?

 

[Katzpur]

The absence of evidence is always evidence of absence, with the significance of that evidence being a function of the significance of the absence.

Profound nonsense.

What is that "subjective criteria", and how might one reliably distinguish this so-called "religious truth" from delusion?

Sorry, I don't think you'd understand even if I were to tell you. Look, I'm fine with your not believing in God. I just have no interest in arguing with you about it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Profound nonsense.

I'm sorry you feel that way. You are, however, profoundly wrong. You would do well to pay more attention to Escher ...

 

[Mr Spinkles]

*MODERATOR POST*

Just a friendly reminder to everyone: the "Discuss Individual Religions" forum is for asking questions and learning only. Debate is not allowed. Please keep these guidelines in mind in the future.

Thanks.

 

[Halcyon]

The absence of evidence is always evidence of absence, with the significance of that evidence being a function of the significance of the absence.

I'm sorry if this is a bit debatey, but i'm not sure this statement makes sense.

There are plenty of theories without physical evidence, string theory for example - but i think it would be unfair to say that because evidence for string theory is absent then strings cannot possibly exist. Sorry if i've read the statement incorrectly.

 

[Hirohito18200]

*seconds Halcyon* and what do you do when both sides can beat each other into bloody pulps so that neither seems logical but you still have 2 make a decision? religion answers atheism *if you dont consider it to be a religion* with non-conclusive arguments, but atheism answers these arguments with theories that can't be proven (pepole were "proving" the egg for a while) and constantly change *not that this is a bad thing, progression is always good, but it does make formulating a long lasting, definitive argument more challenging.* so then, if neither is conclusive, woudln't you choose the position with the greatest upside potential? this dies, though, because no matter what you choose most people will still think you're in for eternal punishment.... and god will never die because he represents the unknown, and we will figure out away to anihilate each other in the name of god before he disappears.../cnn

 

[Tawn]

i think it would be unfair to say that because evidence for string theory is absent then strings cannot possibly exist. Sorry if i've read the statement incorrectly.

Absolutely, but what we have to do, until shown to be otherwise likely, is assume they dont.

 

[Tawn]

if neither is conclusive, woudln't you choose the position with the greatest upside potential?

No I'd choose which I think is more likely. Since religion can be explained away as a social necessity during antiquated times I consider a lack of God to be far more likely.

and god will never die because he represents the unknown,

So true. Some people just cant accept the unknown and leave it as that.
(not that im against theorising and investigating the unknown)

 

[Halcyon]

Absolutely, but what we have to do, until shown to be otherwise likely, is assume they dont.

I agree, to a degree - for further progression along that particular line of quantum physics the theory needs to be assumed correct, as is done with many theories (and i've debated this many a time) such as gravity, evolution etc. But i digress, i just thought it strange to class the absense of evidence as positive evidence for the non-existance of something, seems illogical to me.

 

[Tawn]

I agree, to a degree - for further progression along that particular line of quantum physics the theory needs to be assumed correct, as is done with many theories (and i've debated this many a time) such as gravity, evolution etc. But i digress, i just thought it strange to class the absense of evidence as positive evidence for the non-existance of something, seems illogical to me.

No thats not what im saying.. exactly.. in order to investigate string theory, for example, you are quite right. One has to assume its true and test it. One has to also assume it isnt true and test it with that in mind too.
If results are inconclusive, and we are required to take action, we have to assume it isnt true. If we are not required to take action on that particular issue, we can remain content to say: 'we just dont know'.

 

[Exis]

hmmm, I haven't read all threads under this topic, but I have a few things to say.
(please forgive any repeats)

Lets pretend for a moment that science had finally discovered the logical patterns, energy flows, accessable controls, and biological relations explaining everything from evolution to astrological influances. And lets pretened that the last question left was... "Well, if we know how everything works, and are sure of why everything is the way it is as opposed to other ways it could be, and the Big (but very slow)Bang rolled into energetic patterns of lifeform(albeit whimsey)(next came law, greed, philosophy, etc.), then who or what came up with all these ideas and patterns and logical sciences and structures behind the sciences that we have discovered? What or who decided that when godzillians of oxygen atoms come together to form semigodzillians of oxygen molecules and are pushed around by other moving molecules that they would flow in the specific way that it does, making each and every blade of grass sway in perfect mathmatical harmony with every tiny motion of impact from each individual oxygen molecule? I'll tell you the answer. But before I do, I will define it. One or something that has control over something else through direct or passive influence, esp. One or something that has control over all other ones or somethings that has control over something else through direct or passive influence, the control being limitations and initial structures. -- "He who shall not be named"

 

[Tawn]

You really need there to be something behind all of that don't you?
Lets get more simple and to the point. Lets use gravity. It is a simple law, if you like. Objects of mass are attracted to each other based on relative mass and distance apart. Thats it, yet so much is possible from that simple law.
Do you think the law requires someone behind it to make it work? I think you do, but I dont. Its a natural phenomena and science will attempt to discover more about it when it can. I dont see the value in 'guessing' what might or might not be making gravity happen.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You really need there to be something behind all of that don't you?

Yes, in precisely the same way that there had to be a Thor behind the thunder.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

No thats not what im saying.. exactly.. in order to investigate string theory, for example, you are quite right. One has to assume its true and test it. One has to also assume it isnt true and test it with that in mind too.
If results are inconclusive, and we are required to take action, we have to assume it isnt true. If we are not required to take action on that particular issue, we can remain content to say: 'we just dont know'.

I would rephrase part of this answer. When a given theory is constructed in an attempt to describe a phenomenon, one should strive to make no assumptions regarding whether it is correct or not. Scientists will develop tests that are designed to gather evidence that support the predicted outcome, and tests that are designed to disprove the predicted outcome. Only after the tests have been run, and results have been documented, should one draw conclusions about the accuracy of the theory (hypothesis). If they results are mixed, the theory may be modified, then retested as stated.

TVOR

 

[Tawn]

Scientists will develop tests that are designed to gather evidence that support the predicted outcome, and tests that are designed to disprove the predicted outcome.

Isnt that kindof what I said by assuming true, testing, then assuming false, and testing.. Confused. I guess its nice to think we can take an impartial view - but humans are bias creatures, especially with religion and capitalism making their presence known on the scientific scene. Usually it takes a supporter of a theory to prove the theories validity and another to contest the validity.. not a perfect system but such is life...