Wild idea?

[Brian2]

Where? You mean stories about miracles, surely?

Yes I did mean stories about miracles but there are so many other miracles that we see daily and have become blase to and we can see the awe and power of God in these even if we think we know something about them.

People have died because of those differences.

That is how exaggerated the differences are and were, and that is probably more to do with attitude to the differences rather than the differences themselves.

My world view doesn't involve faith (in the sense used in religion).

Neither does mine but mine and yours are reliant on unproven beliefs about the nature of reality.

I don't really see this natural / supernatural distinction. If there is a god (or gods) surely it (or they) would be the most natural thing(s) in existence.

God is the most natural thing but God is invisible and spirit and undetectable by scientific methods in this universe so it is a matter of definition.

I don't know why things exist and are the way they are and neither do you or anybody else. Thinking there is a god (or gods) don't change that one jot.

Our beliefs about God can give us why answers and a no answer to the belief in God can give us nothing in the why department.

 

[ratiocinator]

Neither does mine but mine and yours are reliant on unproven beliefs about the nature of reality.

Mine does not. I'm saying "I don't know" and you're saying you know that your god did it.

God is the most natural thing but God is invisible and spirit and undetectable by scientific methods in this universe so it is a matter of definition.

And I can see no other reason to take it seriously either. It's not impossible that you are right, I just see no reason to take your claims seriously.

Our beliefs about God can give us why answers and a no answer to the belief in God can give us nothing in the why department.

It can't tell you why your god exists (rather than another one, more than one, none at all, or nothing at all). In that respect it has exactly the same central mystery of existence as atheism. If you mean 'why' as in purpose, then you think it gives you such answers but I'm back thinking that I see no reason to take them seriously.

 

[Brian2]

Mine does not. I'm saying "I don't know" and you're saying you know that your god did it.

I say I believe God did it and you say you believe God did not do it.

And I can see no other reason to take it seriously either. It's not impossible that you are right, I just see no reason to take your claims seriously.

It's one world view pitted against another world view, it is not my claim against your lack of a claim.
An atheist will always use this rhetoric and try to avoid the fact that he/she has beliefs about reality and origins etc which are no are not better than religious faith.

 

[ratiocinator]

I say I believe God did it and you say you believe God did not do it.

Firstly, you're using the word 'God' as if it has a specific and unambiguous meaning, which it doesn't. There are thousands of gods people have believed in. Secondly, and as I said, I can't rule out something that somebody might possibly refer to as 'god' of 'gods' might be involved but, even if it/they exist, they cannot possibly address the basic mystery of existence itself. I see no reason at all to even entertain the speculations because they're basically (as far as I can see) nothing but a blind guesses and fundamentally useless at solving the problem of origins.

The universe may have been sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure (and we should all live in fear of the Coming of the Great White Handkerchief), it might have been manufactured by armies of pan-dimensional pixies, all called Eric, or it might have been created by the equivalent of a spotty teenager called Kevin in some meta-universe, who had a new physics set for his birthday, but none of those address the fundamental problem of existence either.

There is a vast space of storytelling that could superficially 'explain' the origin of the universe, and the human stories about various versions of god or gods are only a small part of it. I see no reason to take baseless storytelling seriously.

 

[Brian2]

Firstly, you're using the word 'God' as if it has a specific and unambiguous meaning, which it doesn't. There are thousands of gods people have believed in. Secondly, and as I said, I can't rule out something that somebody might possibly refer to as 'god' of 'gods' might be involved but, even if it/they exist, they cannot possibly address the basic mystery of existence itself. I see no reason at all to even entertain the speculations because they're basically (as far as I can see) nothing but a blind guesses and fundamentally useless at solving the problem of origins.

The universe may have been sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure (and we should all live in fear of the Coming of the Great White Handkerchief), it might have been manufactured by armies of pan-dimensional pixies, all called Eric, or it might have been created by the equivalent of a spotty teenager called Kevin in some meta-universe, who had a new physics set for his birthday, but none of those address the fundamental problem of existence either.

There is a vast space of storytelling that could superficially 'explain' the origin of the universe, and the human stories about various versions of god or gods are only a small part of it. I see no reason to take baseless storytelling seriously.

Which is no reason to say "God did not do it".
Even science has not and will never have anything but speculation on the subject of origins.

 

[ChristineM]

Which is no reason to say "God did not do it".
Even science has not and will never have anything but speculation on the subject of origins.

Nor is it any reason to say god did it

 

[ratiocinator]

Which is no reason to say "God did not do it".

I'm not. I just don't take it any more seriously that pan-dimensional pixies doing it. Atheism is about (lack of) belief, not absolute certainty or complete knowledge.

Even science has not and will never have anything but speculation on the subject of origins.

Probably not as far as why things fundamentally exist. Science really doesn't matter to my lack of belief in gods. I don't need to believe in an origin story at all; I happy enough just not knowing.

I find what science has found out and the possible speculations that go beyond that interesting, but it really doesn't bother me that it has limitations and that it can't answer the ultimate question of why things exist and are the way they are (neither can gods).

 

[Brian2]

Nor is it any reason to say god did it

You seem to agree that not wanting to believe the stories and not knowing which one is right if any, is not a good reason to say that God did not create the universe.
I also agree with you that this is not a good reason to say that God did it.
Still God could have done it and told us about it and I believe He has do that.

 

[ChristineM]

You seem to agree that not wanting to believe the stories and not knowing which one is right if any, is not a good reason to say that God did not create the universe.
I also agree with you that this is not a good reason to say that God did it.
Still God could have done it and told us about it and I believe He has do that.

Ive told you before, ease don't dictate what you believe i agree to

Of all the hypothesis on the creation of the universe not one suggests god did it.

We do not know but can discount magic.

 

[Brian2]

Ive told you before, ease don't dictate what you believe i agree to

Of all the hypothesis on the creation of the universe not one suggests god did it.

We do not know but can discount magic.

In your answer to me the use of the word "nor" implied to me that you thought I was right. I was not dictating what you believe, and that is also why I said, "you seem to agree...."
How can a scientific hypothesis on the creation of the universe suggest god did it?
If you look only at science you may never see that hypothesis.
That is the nature of science but not necessarily of all of reality.

 

[ChristineM]

In your answer to me the use of the word "nor" implied to me that you thought I was right. I was not dictating what you believe, and that is also why I said, "you seem to agree...."
How can a scientific hypothesis on the creation of the universe suggest god did it?
If you look only at science you may never see that hypothesis.
That is the nature of science but not necessarily of all of reality.

Nor in terms of it is no reason to say god did it

If you don't look at at science all you have is guess and confirmation bias

Please give an example where reality cannot be described by science

 

[Brian2]

Nor in terms of it is no reason to say god did it

If you don't look at at science all you have is guess and confirmation bias

Please give an example where reality cannot be described by science

Science does not know what life is, just the physical examples of life.

 

[ChristineM]

Science does not know what life is, just the physical examples of life.

Nor do you so the point is what? Guess and be happy?

 

[Brian2]

Nor do you so the point is what? Guess and be happy?

To attribute the giving of life by a life giver is not a guess and agrees with science that life comes from pre existing life. Speculation of another source is no more than speculation because of the nature of science and goes beyond what science knows.
In that respect a life giver is current science.

 

[ChristineM]

To attribute the giving of life by a life giver is not a guess and agrees with science that life comes from pre existing life. Speculation of another source is no more than speculation because of the nature of science and goes beyond what science knows.
In that respect a life giver is current science.

You said
"Science does not know what life is"

And i said nor do you.

Where life came from is irrelevant to your statement

To assume life started with a life giver is a guess.

Science considers abiogenesis the source, the best guess , no life giver required.

So to say science agrees that life must come from pre existing life is not quite true

 

[Brian2]

You said
"Science does not know what life is"

And i said nor do you.

Where life came from is irrelevant to your statement

To assume life started with a life giver is a guess.

Science considers abiogenesis the source, the best guess , no life giver required.

So to say science agrees that life must come from pre existing life is not quite true

Abiogenesis is scientific speculation and based on chemistry and physical possibilities and the assumption that life must have come from these things.
What we know as true science, what has been observed is that life comes from life and that is the only way we know.
Of course science is not going to agree that life came from a pre existing life giver.

 

[ChristineM]

Abiogenesis is scientific speculation and based on chemistry and physical possibilities and the assumption that life must have come from these things.
What we know as true science, what has been observed is that life comes from life and that is the only way we know.
Of course science is not going to agree that life came from a pre existing life giver.

And god did it is religious speculation based on bronze age thinking.

Science will agree if it is evidenced that a life giver (a god) did it. To date such evidence has been 100% nonexistent. So what you have is guess, as i said from the start

 

[Brian2]

And god did it is religious speculation based on bronze age thinking.

Science will agree if it is evidenced that a life giver (a god) did it. To date such evidence has been 100% nonexistent. So what you have is guess, as i said from the start

There is evidence even if you do not see it and what I have is faith.
Science does not accept the evidence that is available, it is not scientific enough.
Science is designed for research into the natural world.

 

[ChristineM]

There is evidence even if you do not see it and what I have is faith.
Science does not accept the evidence that is available, it is not scientific enough.
Science is designed for research into the natural world.

If there were valid evidence you would not need faith.

And what you see as evidence is nothing more that confirmation bias, that generally has valid, measurable alternative reasons

 

[Stevicus]

Of course science is not going to agree that life came from a pre existing life giver.

Science might agree, if one provides evidence and describes the process in which this pre-existing life giver gave life.

When God said "Let there be light," who was He talking to anyway? And how was light actually created? Did God flip a switch, snap His fingers, or what?

The Book of Genesis doesn't exactly seem like any kind of scientific explanation. It also says that God created the Earth, sky, and vegetation before creating the Sun, Moon, and the stars, which doesn't make much sense when you think about it.