• 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!

What do you do with missing evidence? Like the global dearth of soft tissue in all fossils?

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
That's the wrong way of reasoning. You're asserting that god did it when there is no reason to suggest that. Let's suppose that a god(s) do exist, there's still no reason to suggest that god created the universe. Because that god(s) may not have created the universe.

I believe that God did it.

That's religion.

I am looking to the scientific method to figure out HOW the universe was created. That's science.

Notice that it doesn't matter whether one believes that God did it or not; the method by which one examines the universe is the same either way.
 

night912

Well-Known Member
I believe that God did it.

That's religion.

I am looking to the scientific method to figure out HOW the universe was created. That's science.

Notice that it doesn't matter whether one believes that God did it or not; the method by which one examines the universe is the same either way.
Actually it does matter, because It's not just about what you believe, it's about why you believe. This is important because that changes the purpose and/or direction of the investigation. This opens up for bias, and that has a big impact on the conclusion of the investigation. And this why your way of reasoning is the wrong way to do it. You start with believing that the conclusion to be true, then look for evidence to fit in. That's not science.

You are confused about two things here. Using methods of science is not the same as the scientific method.

As i said earlier, it's not just about science, god or how the universe work. It's how you reason things. Someone's way of reasoning effects that person's life. I'll give you an example to make it more clear.

EX:
You're a cop walking in the park one day and you come to find a group of people surrounding a dead body. Right away someone from the crowd said that he saw John Doe killed that person. Right away you believe that John Doe murdered this person. Then you start your investigation to find the evidence for John murdering that person.

That's not a rational way of thinking. First of all, you never examine the body to see what the caused of was. Second, you believe that John Doe killed that person without determining if John Doe exist or not. Now comparing the example to this discussion, you believe that god created the universe, therefore you do an investigation on how he created it. All this without having evidence if the universe was created, that god exist, and that god created the universe.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
NO NO NO!!!!

It's just FINE to say 'God did it!"

Because He DID.

What we need to say, once we say 'God did it," is "I wonder how?" And then we go find out.

And how do you go about finding out?
Do you look for something that someone did, or do you rather look for how natural processes can make it come about?


There is no reason why "God did it" and "I wonder how He did that" or "What laws of nature can we figure out by finding out how God did it," or "HOW does this WORK?" Can't work together.

Well, I just told you how they can't, if you wish to be consistent, that is.

If you start with "x did it" and you want to find out how, you'ld have to be looking for something that someone did. Not something that happens as a result of simple laws of nature - because those things aren't "done" by anybody... instead, they just happen. Without the need for any entities, gods or otherwise, to do anything at all.

If you say "god did it", and then find out the scientific how by searching for natural causes, then you're just saying things. That's fine off course. But it has no real meaning at that point.

"God did it" is about faith and religion.

Yes. And science is about reality.

This goes for the biblical young earth creationists AND the atheists who think that if "God did it," then OF COURSE He must have done it in a way we can't understand, and since we CAN understand a lot, then God doesn't exist.

Drives me nuts.

I don't think like that at all.
What drives me nuts, is people who assume the answers before even asking the questions.

"god did it", is exactly that.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
It is the idea that if one figures out how something works, that God obviously did NOT 'do it,' that bothers me.

Does it also bother you when the same is said about fairies, unicorns, thor, bigfoot, aliens,....?

Because, what is the difference, really...?


I can't prove that there is a God...the evidence for deity is subjective and personal

Much like the evidence for alien, fairies, unicorns, bigfoot, ....

But part of the answer I believe I got from Him is "go find out how I did this." A great many theistic scientists feel the same way about it; one CAN believe that 'God did it," AND look for the 'how,' at the same time.

So which of the "how"s that have been discovered through science till now, require a god to "do" them?

In some ways, it actually helps; if one has a subjective faith that all of this makes sense, then looking through scientific lenses at the processes is a wonderful thing.
How does "faith" help in making sense of things like quantum mechanics, relativity, black holes, etc?


You know, "so THAT'S how You did this!" Great on two fronts.

Well... so far, looking at the discoveries of scientific inquiry, it's rather, "ow... so it turns out you had nothing to do with it after all it seems...."
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
That's the wrong way of reasoning. You're asserting that god did it when there is no reason to suggest that. Let's suppose that a god(s) do exist, there's still no reason to suggest that god created the universe. Because that god(s) may not have created the universe.

I nominate you as the winner of the internet today.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Actually it does matter, because It's not just about what you believe, it's about why you believe. This is important because that changes the purpose and/or direction of the investigation. This opens up for bias, and that has a big impact on the conclusion of the investigation. And this why your way of reasoning is the wrong way to do it. You start with believing that the conclusion to be true, then look for evidence to fit in. That's not science.

That would be true IF one was looking for evidence to prove that God did it. If one is aware that whether God 'did it' or not, the processes and the 'laws of nature' would be the same, it's not.

You are confused about two things here. Using methods of science is not the same as the scientific method.

As i said earlier, it's not just about science, god or how the universe work. It's how you reason things. Someone's way of reasoning effects that person's life. I'll give you an example to make it more clear.

EX:
You're a cop walking in the park one day and you come to find a group of people surrounding a dead body. Right away someone from the crowd said that he saw John Doe killed that person. Right away you believe that John Doe murdered this person. Then you start your investigation to find the evidence for John murdering that person.

That's not a rational way of thinking. First of all, you never examine the body to see what the caused of was. Second, you believe that John Doe killed that person without determining if John Doe exist or not. Now comparing the example to this discussion, you believe that god created the universe, therefore you do an investigation on how he created it. All this without having evidence if the universe was created, that god exist, and that god created the universe.

Wrong analogy.

Believing that god exists, and that He 'did it,' doesn't MATTER to how the universe came to be, in terms of 'forensics,' as you put it in your story. They would be the same. Whether God began the whole thing or not, or interferes in any way or not, the 'laws' would be the same as far as WE are concerned. We would not,, COULD not, find any anomalies or weirdnesses...how could we? If God is responsible, then all the laws of nature would conform to what He did, seamlessly. If He is not, there would be no difference in what we could see; belief in deity is very much apart from science.

Confusing and conflating them is a mistake for both sides.

And YOU are the one conflating them. I'm not.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
And how do you go about finding out?
Do you look for something that someone did, or do you rather look for how natural processes can make it come about?

You gather data and find the processes that work, the 'laws' that govern those processes. You leave 'who did it' completely out of the question, because that's not even addressable by science.

Just as 'why is this volcano here instead of on a tectonic fault?" addressable by prayer. No matter who tells you differently, in either case.


Well, I just told you how they can't, if you wish to be consistent, that is.

If you start with "x did it" and you want to find out how, you'ld have to be looking for something that someone did. Not something that happens as a result of simple laws of nature - because those things aren't "done" by anybody... instead, they just happen. Without the need for any entities, gods or otherwise, to do anything at all.

And you are doing precisely what you claim I am doing (and I'm not). YOU have already decided that there is no God, and therefore everything happens as 'a result of simple laws of nature...because those things aren't "done" by anybody...instead, they just happen. Without the need for any entities, gods or otherwise, to do anything at all."

How is that different from someone going after 'science' to prove that 'God did it?"

Because I don't see a difference. You are trying to prove that nobody did it.

Same thing.

Only I'm not worried about proving that God did it. I already believe that He did...but that He DID 'do it' doesn't affect the natural laws or processes used.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
......

Well... so far, looking at the discoveries of scientific inquiry, it's rather, "ow... so it turns out you had nothing to do with it after all it seems...."

What, you get to dictate the 'how' for 'how God did it,' and if He used laws we can (sorta) understand, then obviously no God is responsible?

I have come to the conclusion that atheists are the strictest arbiters of God's behavior there are. If there is ANY chance at all that we might possibly understand the laws by which things work, or (heaven forfend) that WE might be able to replicate anything, then OF COURSE God had nothing to do with it, because according to them, God can ONLY work in incomprehensible ways. If it makes any sense, then God couldn't possibly have 'done it.'

That's a problem for me, because in my own faith system, we are taught that we are, quite literally, His children, and that one of the things we are to do is to learn how things are done, so that we CAN replicate them.

And be like Him.

If he remains utterly incomprehensible, and MUST do everything by breaking the laws of nature, than how can we do that?

(shrug) And I personally don't get why He has to do anything by breaking the very laws of nature that, if He DID create the universe, He also created...or at least used...as the easiest way to do things.

I'm not going to dictate to Him how to do things.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Maybe you should take that as a hint....?

Why?

You aren't.

You are as committing to proving that God had nothing to do with "it" as you accuse me of attempting to prove that He did.

Except of course that I'm not trying to do any such thing.

but you certainly are trying to prove your side of this.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member

"because it doesn't matter".

If it has no impact on models of reality if you include gods or not, then those gods seem irrelevant.

E = mc² + God

If you work that out, then you end up with God = 0
It's the same value that would be given to undetectable pink graviton fairies in the equations of gravity.


It seems kind of useless and meaningless to insist on involving parameters that don't seem to have any effect or relevance to models whatsoever.....

You are as committing to proving that God had nothing to do with "it" as you accuse me of attempting to prove that He did.

No, not at all. First of all, I can't "prove" that unfalsifiable, undetectable entities have anything to do with anything (or not), as that is a logical impossibility.

Secondly, I'm just pointing out that I don't see the use or value in insisting on including parameters that don't seem to have any effect or relevance to models whatsoever.

I'ld be happy to include your god into any one model, as long as you can demonstrate how this god has impact / effect on the process or phenomena that that theory/hypothesis is modeling.

But unless you can do that: why would I care?

Except of course that I'm not trying to do any such thing.

But you ARE insisting that this god is there and plays "some" role, right?
You just can't show that this god in fact is there, nore that there is some role that he plays in anything.

but you certainly are trying to prove your side of this.

No, au contraire. Just pointing out to you that there is no reason to include any "god" variables in anything, when it makes no difference at all.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
What, you get to dictate the 'how' for 'how God did it,' and if He used laws we can (sorta) understand, then obviously no God is responsible?

I'm saying that the "how's" that science has unraveled so far, are natural "how's" and not processes that require any entity to "do" anything.

Take gravity. A hammer falling to earth is explained by the process of gravity.
There is no need to invoke a god "making the hammer fall". No action is required from any entity. Not from any god, not from undetectable graviton pixies.

You can keep pushing back your god's role to all the frontiers of scientific ignorance if you want though...
"god makes hammers fall".
science explains how gravity does that - not gods
"but god created gravity"

And so it goes on.
In the words of Neil deGrass Tyson, such a god is no more or less then "a receeding pocket of scientific ignorance".

I have come to the conclusion that atheists are the strictest arbiters of God's behavior there are.

I'm an arbiter of god's "behavior" about as much as I'm an arbiter of the behavior of leprechauns and undetectable inter-dimensional unicorns.

If there is ANY chance at all that we might possibly understand the laws by which things work, or (heaven forfend) that WE might be able to replicate anything, then OF COURSE God had nothing to do with it, because according to them, God can ONLY work in incomprehensible ways. If it makes any sense, then God couldn't possibly have 'done it.'

Nice strawman.

My actual stance is: the answers science has come up with so far, have no need for super-entities / gods.

That's a problem for me, because in my own faith system, we are taught that we are, quite literally, His children, and that one of the things we are to do is to learn how things are done, so that we CAN replicate them.

So?
Why should I care what your "faith" system teaches?

If he remains utterly incomprehensible, and MUST do everything by breaking the laws of nature, than how can we do that?

I think a better question is... if that's the case, then how could you possibly even know this god is real at all?
After all... That which doesn't manifest in detectable ways, looks very much like the non-existant, you know....

(shrug) And I personally don't get why He has to do anything by breaking the very laws of nature that, if He DID create the universe, He also created...or at least used...as the easiest way to do things.

The thing is that the laws of physics are such that things just happen and don't require any entity "doing" anything.

I'm not going to dictate to Him how to do things.

You haven't even begun to show that there is any "Him" to dictate things to in the first place...
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
You gather data and find the processes that work, the 'laws' that govern those processes. You leave 'who did it' completely out of the question, because that's not even addressable by science.

That's not true at all.
When a dead body is found for example, forensic scientists are usually rather capable of determining if it concerns a "natural" death, or a killing by another being.

So it seems to me that we certainly are capable of differentiating natural causes from actions by conscious agents.

Just as 'why is this volcano here instead of on a tectonic fault?" addressable by prayer.

This seems to imply that anything at all is addressable by prayer.
I disagree.


And you are doing precisely what you claim I am doing (and I'm not). YOU have already decided that there is no God

This is not true at all.
You're the one who's starting with the assumption that a god did it.
And you are so dogmatic in that assumptions that you don't even care how it actually happened. Because no matter what science comes up with: your god will still have done it.

I'm not making any assumptions at all. I'm more about look at a phenomenon and saying "hmm, that's interesting. why does that happen? let's try and find out". And I'm not presupposing any answers at all.

During further research and study of the phenomenon, more data will pour in. That data will contain clues as to its explanation. If those clues include super-entities doing things, I'ld be more then happy to explore that.

But it's not what we find. What we seem to find, are natural causes. Every time.

Yes, it is true that science looks for natural causes to explain the things of reality. Mainly out of necessity, because how do you look for something supernatural?

Yes, science doesn't even know where to start to see if your god of choice had anything to do with anything. But why is that? I say it's the same reason for not knowing where to start to look for undetactable graviton pixies. Because it's ill defined, it makes no testable predictions, it is unsupported and to top it off, unfalsifiable.

And because of that, it doesn't matter. It has no value or meaning. It's useless.

, and therefore everything happens as 'a result of simple laws of nature...because those things aren't "done" by anybody...instead, they just happen. Without the need for any entities, gods or otherwise, to do anything at all."

Well, do you disagree?
For example....

Gravity holds planets together and plays a crucial role in their initial formation.
Is a "god" required to "fiddle" with the rumble of a newborn star to make planets form? Or does it rather just happen, because gravity?

How is that different from someone going after 'science' to prove that 'God did it?"

One is rational because it follows the evidence. The other is irrational because it assumes the answers before asking the questions, and doesn't care about having no evidence.

Because I don't see a difference. You are trying to prove that nobody did it.

Not at all.
I'm saying that there is no data to suggest or support the idea that somebody did anything at all.

Science doesn't not include gods into its models because it doesn't want to...
Instead, it doesn't include gods because there is no reason to.

Only I'm not worried about proving that God did it

Obviously. Why else would you start with "god did it" as a (dogmatic) premise...
If you'ld actually care about being able to support / demonstrate your beliefs, you wouldn't start with the assumed answers before exploring the questions.

I already believe that He did...but that He DID 'do it' doesn't affect the natural laws or processes used.

If you say so.

I say the spirit of the undead extra-dimensional leprechaun that lives in my basement, did it. And the fact that he did do it, doesn't affect the natural laws or processes used.


:rolleyes:

Sorry 'bout the sarcasm if it offends you, but you know... it was too easy.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
"because it doesn't matter".

If it has no impact on models of reality if you include gods or not, then those gods seem irrelevant.

E = mc² + God

If you work that out, then you end up with God = 0
It's the same value that would be given to undetectable pink graviton fairies in the equations of gravity.


It seems kind of useless and meaningless to insist on involving parameters that don't seem to have any effect or relevance to models whatsoever.....



No, not at all. First of all, I can't "prove" that unfalsifiable, undetectable entities have anything to do with anything (or not), as that is a logical impossibility.

Secondly, I'm just pointing out that I don't see the use or value in insisting on including parameters that don't seem to have any effect or relevance to models whatsoever.

I'ld be happy to include your god into any one model, as long as you can demonstrate how this god has impact / effect on the process or phenomena that that theory/hypothesis is modeling.

But unless you can do that: why would I care?



But you ARE insisting that this god is there and plays "some" role, right?
You just can't show that this god in fact is there, nore that there is some role that he plays in anything.



No, au contraire. Just pointing out to you that there is no reason to include any "god" variables in anything, when it makes no difference at all.

You aren't getting my point here, at all. I'll try this again.

You are quite right; when investigating areas of concern to science, 'god variables' have no place. Not unless, down the road somewhere, it becomes impossible to ignore the possibility...and so far it hasn't. Religion and science are different. Science does not invalidate religion...unless some believer insists upon pushing religion in. Religion doesn't invalidate science, no matter what the theist thinks.

It MIGHT be possible, in some distant time, to prove that God exists and that He created everything, but that time is not this time. We simply do not know enough. We might never know enough, as mortal beings.

That doesn't mean that we can't learn as much as we are able, about as many things as possible, and we should, and 'science' is the way to do that.

My dad was a rocket scientist. He was responsible for much of the makeup of the solid fuel lining the inside of the booster rockets that got us to the moon, etc. As in,,,yep, quite literally a rocket scientist.

He's also a deeply believing LDS who loves to read scriptures and who works just as hard interpreting them as he ever did on 'recipes' for stuff that explodes.

he was quite comfortable with both aspects of his life...and he never used the scriptures to help him solve a scientific problem. That's not what they are for. He also never saw a clash between the two.

And neither do I.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
......

So?
Why should I care what your "faith" system teaches?

Well, yeah, since I'm the one you are arguing this stuff with, my beliefs in this matter, well, matter. I sure don't see the need to defend positions I don't hold, and it seems rather silly for you to argue against beliefs I don't hold and insist that I defend them.



I think a better question is... if that's the case, then how could you possibly even know this god is real at all?
After all... That which doesn't manifest in detectable ways, looks very much like the non-existant, you know....

Whether I 'know" (believe, actually) that this god is real is irrelevant to science, even if I'm the scientist. A belief that He was ultimately responsible for ...all this...doesn't affect my own investigations into the processes of natural law any more than your belief that there is no god does.

Except of course that your belief DOES affect it, as does the belief of most other atheist scientists out there; the sort that shy away from any possible path that just MIGHT point at a possible 'God did it' scenario. You know, like Fred Hoyle and the Big Bang?

Now theistic scientists would look at that and say....neat. That sorta fits in with my beliefs, isn't that interesting....and then go on with the business of figuring out how everything works in the 'real world.' The atheist will have a panic attack, back pedal and frantically try to prove that whatever it is is dead wrong, BECAUSE it just MIGHT support a theistic view of creation.

Side track.



The thing is that the laws of physics are such that things just happen and don't require any entity "doing" anything.

They don't? (shrug) Well, you can't know that. really. But that's OK. The job of the scientist is to figure out what those laws are and how they work, not to prove or disprove 'Who" wrote them, or to prove that they simply exist. The ultimate, possible, creator isn't a factor, as long as the laws under discussion don't do weird and inexplicable things.



You haven't even begun to show that there is any "Him" to dictate things to in the first place...

There's a reason for that. Two reasons:

1. I BELIEVE there is, but belief is not proof, and I can't prove there is a God to you. Only to myself.
2. The whole point I'm making is that in terms of science, it doesn't matter whether God did anything or not. WE are learning about what happens and how, not an 'ultimate cause.' One may believe wholeheartedly in Taro readings, but one does not use the Taro to figure out how to make rocket fuel.

...............and no, my Dad didn't use Taro cards for that, either. We don't 'do' Taro, or Ouija boards, whatever.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
T

I say the spirit of the undead extra-dimensional leprechaun that lives in my basement, did it. And the fact that he did do it, doesn't affect the natural laws or processes used.


:rolleyes:

Sorry 'bout the sarcasm if it offends you, but you know... it was too easy.

Well, there you go. If he just sits there in your basement, and his existance doesn't change the way the universe works, then you are quite right. it doesn't affect the natural laws or processes used. They remain the same whether 'God did it,' or Unicorns, Leprechauns, or the flying spaghetti monster started the whole thing up. Doesn't matter.

It's a separate issue.

Only those who are absolutely determined that there CAN BE NO DEITY involved, EVER, have done the 'preconceived notion' thing. The rest of us do science exactly the way you do, except that...if something comes up that MIGHT support a 'God Did IT' scenario, we won't shy away the way many atheistic scientists do (Again, the Big Bang). We also won't get all excited and unhappy because someone finds the proximate cause of a process we are investigating, and we can understand it.

Again, it is not the theistic scientists who are in trouble here, or who are attempting to prove that God Did It. We already believe that, and understand that it's not possible to prove it through science. Science is about other stuff. We go after the other stuff.

It is YOU who are attempting, quite desperately, to prove that there is no God in the mix, and won't go anywhere that might even HINT of deity interference.

We don't care. We'll go anywhere, and when it turns out that the Big Bang was the result of another 'natural' (that is, not 'supernatural') process, it won't bug us any. You guys are the ones who are in danger of getting your world view churned up. We're fine.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
You aren't getting my point here, at all. I'll try this again.

You are quite right; when investigating areas of concern to science, 'god variables' have no place. Not unless, down the road somewhere, it becomes impossible to ignore the possibility...and so far it hasn't. Religion and science are different. Science does not invalidate religion...unless some believer insists upon pushing religion in. Religion doesn't invalidate science, no matter what the theist thinks.

It MIGHT be possible, in some distant time, to prove that God exists and that He created everything, but that time is not this time. We simply do not know enough. We might never know enough, as mortal beings.

That doesn't mean that we can't learn as much as we are able, about as many things as possible, and we should, and 'science' is the way to do that.

So in other words, you have about as much valid reason for advancing a "god" as you have for advancing undetectable pixies.

My dad was a rocket scientist. He was responsible for much of the makeup of the solid fuel lining the inside of the booster rockets that got us to the moon, etc. As in,,,yep, quite literally a rocket scientist.

He's also a deeply believing LDS who loves to read scriptures and who works just as hard interpreting them as he ever did on 'recipes' for stuff that explodes.

he was quite comfortable with both aspects of his life...and he never used the scriptures to help him solve a scientific problem. That's not what they are for. He also never saw a clash between the two.

And neither do I.

You and your dad are certainly not the first, nore the last, who compartementalize their brain in this manner.

I submit that your reasons for believing your religion, would never suffice for you, would it concern any other subject.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
They don't? (shrug) Well, you can't know that. really.

Actually, we can know that, and do know that.

When you drop a hammer, it falls down. It just happens as an effect of mass trapped in a gravitational field. No entity must "do" anything to make it happen.
There's no reason to believe in undetectable graviton pixies.

But that's OK. The job of the scientist is to figure out what those laws are and how they work, not to prove or disprove 'Who" wrote them

:rolleyes:

Laws of nature aren't "written" in a lawbook.


, or to prove that they simply exist. The ultimate, possible, creator isn't a factor, as long as the laws under discussion don't do weird and inexplicable things.

Ever read up on quantum mechanics?
I'ld surely call that weird and inexplicable.

How do you, btw, jump from "weird and inexplicable" to "therefor god"?

There's a reason for that. Two reasons:

1. I BELIEVE there is

"Why?", is my main question here.

, but belief is not proof, and I can't prove there is a God to you. Only to myself.

That makes no sense. You can either prove something or you can't. If this supposed "proof" only works on yourself, then you don't have any proof at all. It is, in fact, indistinguishable from self-deception.

2. The whole point I'm making is that in terms of science, it doesn't matter whether God did anything or not. WE are learning about what happens and how, not an 'ultimate cause.' One may believe wholeheartedly in Taro readings, but one does not use the Taro to figure out how to make rocket fuel.

...because Taro doesn't work - not even for what it is supposedly intended, while science does.


...............and no, my Dad didn't use Taro cards for that, either. We don't 'do' Taro, or Ouija boards, whatever.

Good for you
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Only those who are absolutely determined that there CAN BE NO DEITY involved, EVER, have done the 'preconceived notion' thing. The rest of us do science exactly the way you do, except that...if something comes up that MIGHT support a 'God Did IT' scenario, we won't shy away the way many atheistic scientists do (Again, the Big Bang). We also won't get all excited and unhappy because someone finds the proximate cause of a process we are investigating, and we can understand it.

The only reason why you would include god as a possible answer to begin with, is because you already believe this god exists AND will ultimately be the answer anyway. As that is part of your religious doctrine. It's your assumed conclusion.

From my perspective, such a thing - whatever it may be - wouldn't point to a god any more then it would point to pixies.

Again, it is not the theistic scientists who are in trouble here, or who are attempting to prove that God Did It. We already believe that, and understand that it's not possible to prove it through science. Science is about other stuff. We go after the other stuff.

It is YOU who are attempting, quite desperately, to prove that there is no God in the mix, and won't go anywhere that might even HINT of deity interference.

Arguing strawmen and trying to turn it around is not going to work.
I have not once said anything even remotely close to this.

I have always said that:
1. there is zero reasons to believe a god exists (ie: to accept that claim as true)
2. i'ld be happy to accept that claim, the second valid evidence in support of it is given and the claim is demonstrated.

I don't do "faith". I do evidence and rational reasoning.

We don't care. We'll go anywhere, and when it turns out that the Big Bang was the result of another 'natural' (that is, not 'supernatural') process, it won't bug us any.

And your "faith" in god will simply remain the same.

Tell me, is there something that could possibly change your mind about your god beliefs?
Just wondering....

Obviously you believe this religion of yours is "true".
As it is just a belief, and not proven as you emphasised multiple times, that belief could be wrong, obviously. You might be mistaken.

How could you find out that you are mistaken? Is there something science could discover that, if discovered, it would force you to seriously rethink your religious beliefs?

Or are you more in the state of dogma, where there literally is nothing that could ever make you change your mind?

You guys are the ones who are in danger of getting your world view churned up. We're fine.

Sure, I am in "danger" of being forced to change my beliefs when new things are discovered. I'm not afraid of being mistaken. If new discoveries show me to be wrong about anything, I'll happily change my beliefs.

Not really sure why you would use the word "danger" for that though...

Imo, it seems to me that the "danger" is the opposite: being dogmatically burried into beliefs, assumed conclusion even, so deeply that no amount of evidence or discoveries could ever make you change your mind. That doesn't sound like a healthy spot to be in.
 
Top