• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Scientific Hypothesis of God was banned

Sheldon

Veteran Member
just over a year ago, a group of parents at a school my kids attended grumbled about scripture in school. They wanted it thrown out stating "we don't want our kids corrupted by religion". What I find really interesting about parents doing this is the ignoring of the question...isn't the goal of education such that we provide this knowledge to our kids so they can also make choices for themselves?

Choices yes, indoctrination no. How many deities were they teaching these children that humans had imagined? What objective difference were they offering between these beliefs?
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
That can be great, and it can be a very dangerous idea, since deities seem to endorse some fairly barbaric, and pernicious behaviour.

How about we all accept that the best way for us all to live together, is by granting all human beings equal rights as a bare minimum, and accepting that any deity anyone believes exists, can punish whomever gets this wrong after we all die?

I'm ok with this. It seems like a fair compromise.
In a way that reply reminds me of an allergic reaction. Its not identifying the real nature of the problem. You have detected that belief in God or gods may be dangerous, but you seem to think these arise independent of nation states. I don't know whether you do think so, but it seems that you do to me. Correct me if I'm mistaken about your point of view. I think you are, in spite of your fire and spark, involved in the process of making new deities and upholding current ones. Humanity is a scorpion that keeps stinging itself. You and I are the tail. We are the stinger whether we say we are atheists or whether we say that we are believers.

I could present a nation backing any god or God that you find to be dangerous. Name the god, and I'll name the nation. Show me an exception, and I'll show you a young nation or one that has had a recent change of government.

The freedoms that you talk about have appeared before, but nationality has always defeated them. If you live in a nation you are helping to form new deities and new powers that crush people. Do you like institutions and the stability and guidance of laws? It is your innate appreciation for order, for equality, for equity which are turned against you by the nature of the human race which forms us all into nations. This you blame upon deities, but it is the nations which make the deities and nations which you support. The wars fought in the name of deities are actually fought on your own behalf to protect your property, your name, your freedom.

You are part of the process which has happened before, many times. A bubble of time in history appears where people live freely, but it is soon burst. And that is why your desire to defeat deities can only be accomplished by abandoning the way that people live. You must flee and live homeless. Like Abraham in tents or like gypsies wandering about, always driven away by locals. You'll have to give up nations, but you probably won't. Even your post betrays your belief in nations, because you use terms like 'Barbaric' and 'Granting' and 'Agree' and 'Rights'. All of these are theological, nationalistic, institutional terms. I think you are missing the real enemy, which is nationality. It is the actual deity you cannot seem to extinguish.
 

AdamjEdgar

Active Member
Choices yes, indoctrination no. How many deities were they teaching these children that humans had imagined? What objective difference were they offering between these beliefs?
scripture in schools here is taught by a variety of demoninational groups. Some catholic, some presbyterian, some baptist etc etc. It depends entirely on which churches put their hands up to send scripture teachers into the schools on those days to run the classes. I dont think the point of how many deities matters...the point is, if children are restricted from getting religious instruction, are we giving them any choice and would any choice that is made by the child be made with balanced information and knowledge?
 

JustGeorge

Not As Much Fun As I Look
Staff member
Premium Member
scripture in schools here is taught by a variety of demoninational groups. Some catholic, some presbyterian, some baptist etc etc. It depends entirely on which churches put their hands up to send scripture teachers into the schools on those days to run the classes. I dont think the point of how many deities matters...the point is, if children are restricted from getting religious instruction, are we giving them any choice and would any choice that is made by the child be made with balanced information and knowledge?

I sometimes see this argument, and I understand where you're coming from. However, what most making it don't take into account is that Christianity is only one representation of religion. Religion does not equal Christianity. If we were to teach 'religious instruction' in school to give kids a balanced view to make a choice, we'd have to teach them of all the religions. And that would get exhaustive, and it could be hard to find teachers willing to give unbiased instruction on each of them. It would take an incredible amount of time. Best leave the religious education to the parents.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
I think the real issue is not whether science can prove God but rather it cannot explain the reason for our existence.
I always ask
What started the big bang and why...where did the energy and matter come from?
The explanation I'm hearing these days is that nothing, became something for such a tiny amount of time, it basically remained nothing and that doesn't breach the law that energy and matter cannot be created!
I have to ask, why do people who believe such a statement think Christians are naive and stupid?

The truth I think is that most people never even bother to question that fundamental issue about the big bang...it does not even enter their heads!
Even Stephen Hawkings answer to that question is surprising.the real answer from science is "we don't know yet"!
I think you are showing a little impatience, given that modern science has been in existence for perhaps a few centuries, but has achieved a lot in this time. The last several decades has seen so much progress, and even in my lifetime, so I would give science a little more leeway, given that religions have just provided us a spectrum of beliefs concerning existence, and mostly not testable.

I don't think most non-believers in religion would believe the religious are naive and stupid, but the ones who try to dismiss much of science because it might contradict what their religion might tell them could be seen as being foolish - because this often impacts on other areas of science - such that it might spread, like a disease.
 
Last edited:

leroy

Well-Known Member
1. How many things outside of time and space did you test, before you determined that anything outside of the temporal universe needed a cause?
2. How did you test anything outside of time and space?
3. Since time itself is dependant on the physical universe, how could it have a "beginning"?

I wonder if you are that "picky " with everything ir just with the stuff with theological implications that you don't like.

.. how can you test if dinosaurs 65M had the hability to reproduce and have offspring?

By your logic this must mean that the claim that modern birds evolved from ancient dinosaurs is untestable.

Evolution is a scientific fact that explains the origin of species, and makes no claims about the origins of life or the organs of the universe.

Evolution is both testable an falsifiable, it has been tested in over 162 years of global scientific scrutiny, from multiple scientific fields, and it has not been falsified. However the claim "goddidit using inexplicable magic" is certainly not falsifiable. Also it is an accepted scientific theory, and an accepted scientific fact. Even were it not, creationism would remain an entirely unevidenced and unfalsifiable archaic myth. It is not a choice between the two.
I am not denying the claim that evolution (common ancestry) is true. I am just saying that it is untestable and unfalsifiable. For example how can you test/falsify the claim that humans and bacteria have a common ancestor?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
"Intelligent Design" was tested in court in the Dover case 2005. (To their lasting disgrace, Dembski, Campbell and Myer ran for the hills when they found out that if they filed a deposition, they could be cross-examined on it.) Michael Behe had the courage of his convictions, gave evidence and was indeed cross-examined. His "evidence", three cases of "irreducible complexity" ( (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system) were all found to be explained by exaptation, leaving zero examples of "irreducible complexity" on the table. (Exaptation occurs when a body part or procedure evolved for purpose A then further evolves for purpose B. Certain fine bones in the human ear evolved from what were previously parts of the jaw, for example.)

So we have no reason to think that ID is true.

Even if it could be shown to be true, it wouldn't be evidence of God, of course, since a real God is not a coherent concept ─ never appears, says or does, and has no definition appropriate to an entity with objective existence. It might be evidence of extraterrestrial visitors, or the fact that things which we judge to be enormously improbable do indeed happen, or a research error. We may find out more if we ever find a real case of ID.
Really? If ID where proven to be true wouldn't you move a step towards theism ?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Really? What method have you devised to test either claim?
Well for example the Borde–Guth–Vilenkin was used to test the claim that the universe had a beginning

And even if you could determine that whatever begins to exist has a cause and that the universe began to exist, you're still a long way from providing any evidence that it was some god being involved.

Its a logical deduction, that could be falsified if you find flaws in such logic.


(Just to be clear the claim is that the KCA is testable and falsifiable)
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Yes indeed, really. >Here's< a link to a copy of the judgment in the Dover trial, if you'd like to read it.
If ID where proven to be true wouldn't you move a step towards theism ?
No reason to do that. Even if we had a persuasive example of what appeared to be "irreducible complexity", as I said before, it could be the work of extraterrestrials, it could be simply an almighty coincidence ─ they happen all the time, but they have to be of a special kind before we humans notice them ─ but most likely it would simply mean we have more to learn, just as it has on countless occasions in the past.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Choices yes, indoctrination no. How many deities were they teaching these children that humans had imagined? What objective difference were they offering between these beliefs?
Didn't you learn about many deities in school?why would it be wrong to include Jesus in the list of deities thaT students learn about. ?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
1. Would not the above categorically dispute the idea of infinte universe?
2. Surely if something is expanding, it has to have a center...a point of origin.
3. Does this not mean that it must therefore have a beginning?
I'm very familiar with what you posted as I have read numerous books on cosmology and have a decades long subscription to "Scientific American", but again I have to lean in the direction of infinity with change as this is what we are seeing in general. So, if we are going to use what we're seeing as being any kind of guide as to what happened billions of years ago, this leaning makes sense.

However, what it doesn't do is to give us objective evidence that there cannot be God, thus I am a theist but undoubtedly am significantly less orthodox than most. What has pushed me into a belief in God is what I went through for 2 & 1/2 years that just blew my mind and basically convinced me that there has to be "Something", and that Something I call "God".
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
In a way that reply reminds me of an allergic reaction. Its not identifying the real nature of the problem. You have detected that belief in God or gods may be dangerous, but you seem to think these arise independent of nation states. I don't know whether you do think so, but it seems that you do to me. Correct me if I'm mistaken about your point of view.

You are mistaken, of course religions are influenced by the countries, cultures and societies they exist and evolve in, though this does not change the underlying point that religions can hold core doctrinal ideas that are pernicious, obviously in a free democracy where people are free to believe or disbelieve as they wish, these ideas might have less impact. A good example would be homophobia, and we have seen some pernicious views expressed on here involving such doctrinal bigotry, but in other countries the impact goes way beyond hateful bigotry and prejudice.


I think you are, in spite of your fire and spark, involved in the process of making new deities and upholding current ones. Humanity is a scorpion that keeps stinging itself. You and I are the tail. We are the stinger whether we say we are atheists or whether we say that we are believers.

Not sure I follow sorry.

The freedoms that you talk about have appeared before, but nationality has always defeated them. If you live in a nation you are helping to form new deities and new powers that crush people. Do you like institutions and the stability and guidance of laws? It is your innate appreciation for order, for equality, for equity which are turned against you by the nature of the human race which forms us all into nations.

That maybe, but are we to simply give up, and not try to fight for freedom? I am not just a member of a nation, I also have reasonable autonomy of thought, and as it happens I have always been dubious about patriotism, and despise nationalism, which I view as a pernicious concept that must ne guarded against.

This you blame upon deities, but it is the nations which make the deities and nations which you support. The wars fought in the name of deities are actually fought on your own behalf to protect your property, your name, your freedom.

I am an atheist, thus it is nonsensical to accuse me of "blaming deities" for anything. The second sentence has lost me sorry, you seem to be leaping into non-sequiturs, while making sweeping claims about me, that seem to be based on nothing more than assumption about what I think and why.

You are part of the process which has happened before, many times. A bubble of time in history appears where people live freely, but it is soon burst.

Again you are making assumptions about me, and again one wonders how you can possibly know what I think without my telling you? I'd also ask again, what would you have me do, abandon the pursuit of the idea we should live in free societies, just because historically these freedoms don't last? Plato certainly thought that it was inevitable for democracies to end in the rule of tyrants, I don't know that it is inevitable but it is a constant danger of course.

And that is why your desire to defeat deities can only be accomplished by abandoning the way that people live. You must flee and live homeless.

I am an atheist, so I don't believe there are any deities to defeat, only as I said, pernicious ideas to protect ourselves from. Fleeing my country and living homeless seems an unrealistic bit of hyperbole to me. I understand that one can never be completely free, especially while living in the society of others, but one can at least expect and fight for freedom of speech, thought and expression.

Like Abraham in tents or like gypsies wandering about, always driven away by locals. You'll have to give up nations, but you probably won't. Even your post betrays your belief in nations, because you use terms like 'Barbaric' and 'Granting' and 'Agree' and 'Rights'. All of these are theological, nationalistic, institutional terms.

If you say so, I am dubious, and again you seem to be leaping to conclusions about me based on tenuous assumptions. If you want to disagree that is what debate is for, but why you are minded to tell me what I think is a little bizarre.


I think you are missing the real enemy, which is nationality.

You're wrong, but then that is always a risk we run when we leap to unevidenced assumptions about people.

It is the actual deity you cannot seem to extinguish.

Nations are deities, that seems an odd way to express it, but people certainly worship nations if that is what you mean. I cannot extinguish? Meaning I am one of those people who indulge nationalism? If so then again you're very wrong, and leaping to incorrect assumptions. I despise nationalism and always have, and have always recognised how pernicious it can be.
 
Last edited:

Sheldon

Veteran Member
scripture in schools here is taught by a variety of demoninational groups. Some catholic, some presbyterian, some baptist etc etc. It depends entirely on which churches put their hands up to send scripture teachers into the schools on those days to run the classes. I dont think the point of how many deities matters...the point is, if children are restricted from getting religious instruction, are we giving them any choice and would any choice that is made by the child be made with balanced information and knowledge?
Children can be taught religion in church surely? I have no problem with secular course in religion, but I don't think instructing children in a particular religion should be part of a state education.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
I sometimes see this argument, and I understand where you're coming from. However, what most making it don't take into account is that Christianity is only one representation of religion. Religion does not equal Christianity. If we were to teach 'religious instruction' in school to give kids a balanced view to make a choice, we'd have to teach them of all the religions. And that would get exhaustive, and it could be hard to find teachers willing to give unbiased instruction on each of them. It would take an incredible amount of time. Best leave the religious education to the parents.

I agree, if parents want their children to follow a religion, that is their business. However a state funded education is not the proper environment for this.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
I wonder if you are that "picky " with everything ir just with the stuff with theological implications that you don't like.

You're playing the man, and not the ball, again. One can only infer you have no answer to the objections I raised to your first cause argument, and it's flawed assumptions about causation.

.. how can you test if dinosaurs 65M had the hability to reproduce and have offspring?

"Dinosaur fossils have furnished clues to such intimate details as when during development these reptiles reached sexual maturity and how they attracted mates. Meanwhile studies of birds and crocodilians—the closest living relatives of dinosaurs—hint at what the external reproductive anatomy of dinosaurs looked like. And computer modelling offers the possibility of testing theories about how these giants managed to do the deed itself. Much remains to be discovered, but scientists are slowly drawing back the curtain on dinosaur amour."


By your logic this must mean that the claim that modern birds evolved from ancient dinosaurs is untestable.

there is only one logic, and I have not contributed anything to the scientific theory of evolution, if you think you have valid scientific objections publish them, when you get your Nobel prize I will pay due deference, in the meantime given hwo much objective scientific evidence has been amassed for species evolution, your objections are no less absurd than denying the rotundity of the earth.

I am not denying the claim that evolution (common ancestry) is true. I am just saying that it is untestable and unfalsifiable.

The scientific world disagrees with you, and given your obviously biased against this accepted scientific theory, in favour of your religious beliefs, I can only view your claims in that context. Science rewards those who falsify ideas as much as those who validate them, despite this, and the obvious antipathy of global religions to wards species evolution, it remains an accepted scientific fact after over 162 years of global scientific scrutiny.

For example how can you test/falsify the claim that humans and bacteria have a common ancestor?

Have you tried asking someone with the necessary expertise in evolutionary biology?

Here are my objections and questions to your first cause argument, since you ignored them.

1. How many things outside of time and space did you test, before you determined that anything outside of the temporal universe needed a cause?
2. How did you test anything outside of time and space?
3. Since time itself is dependant on the physical universe, how could it have a "beginning"?

As I said it is a false dichotomy fallacy to imply we are faced with a choice between the scientific fact of species evolution, or an unevidenced creation myth. Even in the astronomically unlikely event that species evolution were entirely falsified, this would not lend any credence to creationism.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Its a logical deduction, that could be falsified if you find flaws in such logic.

I offered several and you ignored them, waved them away with an ad hominem affably. Also the assumption a deity "caused" the universe is not a logical deduction, it is pure assumption, usually based on the use of begging the question fallacies, so far from being a logical deduction it is irrational.

(Just to be clear the claim is that the KCA is testable and falsifiable)

It is neither, and it contains unevidenced assumptions about causation outside of the temporal physical universe, how is that testable exactly? It also ignores the fact that all causes we understand are natural phenomena, so having created a rule that it is dubious to apply before Planck time, it then ignores the rule and assumes divine agency using inexplicable magic. If ever anything were unfalsifiable that is.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Can you provide any example used in court where DNA was used to determine "ancestry" beyond the second generation...?

Who us ready for an other round of @Sheldon avoiding his burden proof?

Straw man fallacies you falsely assign to others, do not carry a burden of proof, unless you'd care to quote me making any such claim? :rolleyes:

Species evolution through natural selection is an accepted scientific fact, and based on the evidence of an accepted scientific theory in good standing. I don't need to evidence your straw man claims about it.

"Fossils, anatomy, embryos, and DNA sequences provide corroborative lines of evidence about common ancestry, with more closely related organisms having more characteristics in common. DNA underlies the similarities and differences in fossils, anatomy, and embryos."

If you really wanted to learn about evolution you could find the facts as easily as anyone else, but you just want to deny those facts, in favour of creationism.
 
Top