Tell me why my personal belief is wrong

[Brian2]

Science cannot make a check on fictitious things.

You also seem to be an atheist/skeptic who says that it is not real because science has not found it.

 

[Brian2]

"Since we do not know, it is God" is a lame argument.

Since we do not know, it is not God must also be a lame argument.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is a guess.

It is not.

Due to the fact that things like space, time and gravity exist in the way that they do, the collapse of matter under gravity into a star is inevitable.

Nobody or no thing needs to "put that into motion". It happens automatically due to circumstances.

Or take the physical process of a river carving out a canyon through erosion. That too is inevitable due to the properties of rock, running water and again gravity.

Or take the physical process of biological evolution. Evolution also is inevitable due to the very properties of life and how reproduction happens. Living things are systems that reproduce with variation in an ever changing environment in which they are in competition with peers over limited resources. Evolution in such a context is once again inevitable.

Nothing or nobody needs to "kick start" these processes. They automatically occur due the very nature of space, time and the forces of nature.

There is no known nature of the space time continuum at the Big Bang, if that happened.

If you are talking about the origins of the universe, there was no space-time continuum at that moment.
If you are not talking about that, then I don't know what you are talking about.

Science does not replace the need for God when it finds a physical mechanism for a process.

This "need" for a god only exists in the minds of the religious.
There is no such "need" in reality. Or at least, not one that can be shown.

For example, name me ONE natural phenomenon that would actually be better understood if you inject a mysterious, vague, undetectable god into it.

The fact is that you can't explain mysteries by appealing to even bigger mysteries.
When you do that, in reality not only have you NOT answered any open questions... instead, you trigger even MORE questions.

Injecting a god does not raise levels understanding. At all.
Not even by a long shot. If anything, it LOWERS it.

So the advance of science does not mean that God is pushed aside.

It is, if that god, as Neil deGrass Tyson once said, is an ever receeding pocket of scientific ignorance.

As in:
theist: "God created the earth!"
science: "err, no... planets form through gravity from accretion disc of the solar formation and blabla...."
theist: "ow but god created the star and the accretion disc!!!!"
science: "err, no... stars form through gravity again when matter collapses under gravity and reach critical mass which makes nuclear fusion set in"
theist: "ow but god created the matter and the gravity!!!!"
.....

And so it goes on and on and on and on.

I don't remember a single instance where after science tackled a problem that was previously attributed to "GOD DUN IT", it turned out that god was the correct explanation.

Instead, every single time, gods were shown to be completely obsolete and as unnecessary as undetectable centaurs.

You seem to think that science is going to fill gaps that it is not possible for science to fill.
Science cannot say there was no creation or that life originally came from dead matter and verify it. It is educated guessing which is based on the presumption that God did not do it.

Ow my. That is HILARIOUSLY ironic.... first you try to argue that you aren't engaging in a god of the gaps, only to then..... point out knowledge gaps in science for the purpose of plugging your god into it.

Absolutely hilarious.

Now, please tell us all: how have you determined that it is "impossible" for science to investigate and discover how life could originate?

Atheists and skeptics want to set up their own Gap theory, the Science of the Gaps, in which natural processes without God are insinuated into all the gaps that science has not filled yet .

Hilariously shameless projection.

So when scientific study and investigation occurs into phenomena that aren't understood yet, then that is "science of the gaps"????

That is just.... wow. I don't even know how to respond to such drivel.

and which God specifically said that He did

You mean.... where humans claimed god did it while claiming they are speaking for their god of choice.

Hypotheticals are only wishful thinking on your part.

Not a hypothetical. It occurred in the past with literally almost every scientific discovery of natural phenomenon or other things that were not understood.

All of which were once attributed to a god or gods.
It's not like we don't have precedents of things that were attributed to a god which after scientific investigation turned out to be just natural phenomenon.

As I said, physical mechanisms for how things happen does not take away the need for God.

What "need" for a god?

This is more the case with made up physical mechanisms which presume no God.

Why would anyone presume anything for which there is no evidence?
Models of gravity also presume no undetectable pink graviton fairies. Do you consider that a problem also?

There is the spiritual side of things

So what is the "spiritual side" of a planet forming under gravity? And how do you detect it?

and I can show it in ways that science does not accept, because science will only consider physical mechanisms. Any mechanism found is automatically natural and so physical.

You forgot to actually explain how you can show it.
Just claiming that you can is not going to cut it.

Such as the beginnings of life and consciousness. The scientific presumption is that it is not spiritual and so life and consciousness is therefore defined in physical ways.

Both are physical things. Why wouldn't they be defined in physical ways?
I also fail to see how these are supposedly "atheist and skeptic conclusions".

A theistic scientist will also define such things in physical ways. Clearly there is nothing inherently "atheistic" about that. Or are you of the false opinion that every scientist is an atheist?

So an atheist and skeptic looks at it and says that all the evidence points to life only being physical in nature

Again, this is not an "atheist or skeptic" statement.
It is just a true and valid statement.

Indeed, all evidence points to such.
If you have independently verifiable evidence available which points to something else, please share it and I'll be happy to accept it. But you don't have such evidence, do you?

So how is it false to say that all the evidence points to those things being physical?

and without the need for it to come from pre existing life.

First life factually, and by necessity, comes from non-life. This is true for atheists as well as theists.
At one point there was no life and then there was.

By necessity, that means that first life did not come from pre-existing life.
The actual question is "how did that occur?".

The difference between you and scientists, is that scientists don't presume to have the answers before actually asking and investigating the question. You however, do.

Neither of you know the answer.
The difference is that scientists then roll up there sleaves and go to work to find the answer.
You on the other hand, just point to your ancient religion and baselessly claim "my god dun it" - as if that answers anything at all.

I'll put my eggs in the basket that engages in the intellectually honest exercise of finding the answer, rather then just assert it religiously without evidence.

In the meantime, until rational and demonstrable answers are actually found, the only correct answer is "we don't know".

YOU here are the one with the a priori beliefs about how life originated. Not me.
YOU are the one with invested interest in holding on to this a prior belief. Not me.
YOU are the one with the emotional attachment to an a priori belief. Not me.

Me.... I'm fine going where the evidence leads. And if the evidence would lead to a god, I'ld happily accept that. But it doesn't. And because it doesn't, it doesn't even register as a plausibility. God's are as relevant to the question as undetectable cookie monsters are. The evidence also doesn't lead to undetectable cookie monsters.

The evidence so far, is leading to plain old (bio)chemistry.
So that's the direction scientists who study this subject are looking.
If the evidence would lead elsewhere, they'ld be looking elsewhere.

But the atheist and skeptic cannot or don't want to see that the scientific conclusions are based on a presumption and not on evidence

Says the guy with the a priori belief of how life originated.
I have to ask again: what conclusion?
Where have I ever stated that the origins of life are solved?

YOU are the one who is pretending to have the answer. Not me. Not science.

. iow science has to call life chemistry because science is not able to find and analyse spirit.

Yeah. Just like I have to call my house a brick box because I am not able to find and analyse the undetectable extra-dimensional goblins that bricks are actually really made off.

Do you know what else we are unable to find and analyse? Things that don't exist.

The atheist and skeptic conclude against the spiritual because of the presumptions of just physical in the science. It's circular reasoning really.

False.

I don't conclude "against" things that are unfalsifiable. That is a waste of energy.
Instead, I conclude FOR things that are in evidence.
And I conclude against things that are in contradiction with the evidence.



Here's a question: if it is impossible to "find and analyse spirit" - then how have you concluded that it is there?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Since we do not know, it is not God must also be a lame argument.

Good thing that nobody is making that argument, then.

 

[Revoltingest]

Please, in your own words.

Why is my personal religious belief wrong?

It's not even wrong.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You also seem to be an atheist/skeptic who says that it is not real because science has not found it.

It is not about what science has found or what it has not. It is about total absence of evidence for God and soul.

 

[Muffled]

Please, in your own words.

Why is my personal religious belief wrong?

I believe that is due to a lack of knowledge and understanding.

 

[Muffled]

My main belief is within Baha'i teaching now. So example science has their answers, personally i do not trust science 100%

However that may be a personal belief is not one from God but from ones own reasoning and imagination. Added to that is the fact that the Baha't teaching does not come from God either but from the personal beliefs of the founding philosophers.

 

[Orbit]

Please, in your own words.

Why is my personal religious belief wrong?

This has probably already been said, but why do you invite criticism? You are free to believe whatever you want to believe.

 

[Muffled]

I can't answer since I do not know how God create things, but I believe God did it. Notice the word believe...

I believe I can help with that. God spoke things into existence. Magic is something different and the way a scientist views things he doesn't understand,

 

[Muffled]

This has probably already been said, but why do you invite criticism? You are free to believe whatever you want to believe.

Perhaps but a person who wishes to have the truth must test the theories.

 

[Spirit of Light]

However that may be a personal belief is not one from God but from ones own reasoning and imagination. Added to that is the fact that the Baha't teaching does not come from God either but from the personal beliefs of the founding philosophers.

In your opinion

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Perhaps but a person who wishes to have the truth must test the theories.

Yeah, but that depends as such on how you test and what you consider a correct answer. As for truth as truth there are at least 5 different versions, which are not totally compatible.

 

[Spirit of Light]

This has probably already been said, but why do you invite criticism? You are free to believe whatever you want to believe.

I wanted to hear the critiques own opinion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

However that may be a personal belief is not one from God but from ones own reasoning and imagination. Added to that is the fact that the Baha't teaching does not come from God either but from the personal beliefs of the founding philosophers.

Yeah, you are one of the universalist. There is one road to God and that is yours. I am a relativist and individualist when it comes to God.

 

[Fool]

Quite so. There are observations, conjectures, theorems, theories, &c. It's the theories and observations that are generally called 'facts'.

A fact is not necessarily an ontological truth. A fact is an idea so well evidenced that dismissing it would be unreasonable.

yet people are fallible and do so, even scientist. it took a couple of doctors decades to convince the medical establishment that a bacteria could cause ulcers in the digestive system, even using scientific research

it took decades more again to convince scientists that people could be allergic to meat because of a simple carbohydrate called alpha-gal found in other mammals.

Tick that causes meat allergy is spreading

 

[loverofhumanity]

Bahai faith is a beautiful religion. Bahai faith is from God because it teaches that kindness, love, peace is very important.

I believe in reincarnation, the Bahai do not believe in reincarnation. That is the reason I can not be Bahai

I love it when people who do not agree still see the good in others beliefs. You are a beautiful person to reach out with love and the world I believe needs people like you.

 

[Bird123]

Please, in your own words.

Why is my personal religious belief wrong?

Your personal religious belief is wrong because you should be seeking Facts and Truth rather than ever being satisfied with mere beliefs. Beliefs point a direction by which one might search for the Truth. Beliefs are the beginning. Beliefs have never been the end.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Secret Chief]

Please, in your own words.

Why is my personal religious belief wrong?

Is it right for you?
You seem to me to be a seeker of validation. You do not need to, imo.

 

[Valjean]

No. Facts are data. Data coming from observation, measurements, etc.
Theories explain facts.
Theories aren't facts. And never will be facts.
Theories are explanations of sets of facts.



No. Facts aren't "idea's".

Facts = data.

Data (facts) require an explanation. Why are the facts what they are? How did they come about?

You develop a hypothesis to answer those questions.
After rigorous testing and confirmation of that hypothesis, it might get promoted to "theory".
That's the final graduation stage of an idea in science.

And while we are at it with the jargon explanation: laws aren't theories and never were.
Laws are generalizations or abstractions of sets of facts.
Laws, just like facts, require an explanation.

Hypothesis / theories attempt to give that explanation.


Main point in context of this sub conversation here anyhow: facts = data

You're preaching to the choir here, but the explanation is either factual or false. Theories/explanations are generally spoken of as facts, even in science.
eg: Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia