God?

NiGHTMARE said:

I believe that God was responsible for the creation of the universe, and then pretty much just let things happen on their own from there.

To say that there is no God simply because there is no scientific evidence to support his existence and no logical reason why he should exist is illogical.

hmmm, let me try and explain myself again

Scientist:
[...]in order to prove that something does not exist, one need not show that it is logically impossible. One need only show is that it is epistemically unnecessary-that it is not required to explain anything. Science has proven the non-existence of many things in this way, such as phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan. Scientific proofs, unlike logical proofs, do not establish their conclusions beyond any possibility of doubt. But they are proofs nonetheless, for they establish their conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt and that is all that is needed to justify them.

It is not possible to prove that something does not exist using pure logic. Therefor Logic cannot disprove the existance of god.
However: Science is not pure Logic. Logic is just one of many instruments of Science.
Science CAN prove that things do not exist. One need only show that it is epistemically unnecessary-that it is not required to explain anything. This is the way of science. The question whether or not this is a correct way of finding truth is not important here. The point is that Science can never use god as an explanation (it would be against its own reasoning). Therefor science and god can't go together.

If you want to think god made everything, that's fine with me!
If you want to think evolution is correct, that's fine with me!
But my point is they don't go together. They can't both be right, so in a way it IS a fucking game of soccer where there can be only one winner.

Ct RP, Like you I too would like the answers to does questions. That's why I support Science. Scientists seek the answers to these and many other important questions. They devote their whole lives to it, hoping they can unravel just one little bit of the explanation. This I find very noble.
But simply saying "oh yea, god must of done that or something" is not looking for an explanation. It's just an exuse for not knowing and not wanting to know anything.

Captain Red Pants:
Even if Science dose answer that question, it will rase another question "well what made that?" and you will reach a point were it would seem that "It just appered". But go ahead, flaw my logic.

Q: What created the earth?
A: god

Q: What created god?
A: "It just appered"

Go ahead, flaw your own logic

I believe that organized religion, where you gather in one place once a week, recite the same words as everyone else, is a cult. The only reason why it isn't called a cult is because they don't butcher animals or children in the game of their god.

I DO believe that there is a God, and angels, but no where in the Bible does it mention that I have to mindlessly worship him. I like to think of God and angels as an equal to me and everyone else, working to make the world a better place, looking out for each other.

Religion as we see it nowadays is a perversion of what the truth is. No one can say which religion is the right one, if there is one. I don't know how the world got created, maybe it was a supreme being, maybe we just don't exist at all.

People lead screwed up lives, lying, cheating, and stealing. And going to church once a week is supposed to magically change all of that? I don't fucking think so.

Take that bitch that caused my car to be totaled off. SHE SWORE ON THE BIBLE. The lied through her teeth. People make me sick.

Thankfully I won the court case. :)

Scientist said:

Q: What created the earth?
A: god

Q: What created god?
A: "It just appered"

Go ahead, flaw your own logic

God is the beginning and the end. God always has been and always will be. God was never created, he/she/it/they just is. That's what makes God, God.

Science my be able to answer the "How" of everything but not the "Why". and, frankly, the "Why" is of more consern to me. Why should we try to get along? Why is life importent? Science hasn't answered these questions... nether has religion for that matter, though it has come abit closer...

NOTE: This next line is one of the most important things you will need to learn:

Science is not a Religion, Religion is not a Science. Try to substitute one for the other, and things always get messy.

“Heavenly Father, I bring to You my burden for Scientist. I claim him for salvation. Lord, it is Your desire that Scientist not perish. Holy Spirit, make Jesus known to Scientist. Stir within Scientist the desire to seek salvation and convict him of sin. Lord, soften any resistance to the truth, and plant seeds of the Word in Scientist's mind and heart. Lord, break Scientist's will. Make him desperate and bring him to the end of himself.
Lord, I ask You to break Satan's power in Scientist's life. Spirit of Jesus, silence and subdue the voice of the enemy. In the authority of Christ, I weaken any strongholds in Scientist's life. Holy Spirit, move in Your power to separate away from this person the influence of unclean spirits, and stir him to repentance. I bind the power of any spirits of confusion and unbelief that blind the mind. Lord, enable him to hear Your Word with clarity. Send someone to share a word of testimony.” Thank You,

In Jesus' Name I pray,
Amen
Failing that Lord, give the fucker boils.

Ezekiel 25:17 The Path of the righteous man is for set from all sides by the inequities of the selfish, and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity, and good will, shepherds the weak, through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother’s keeper, and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and ferrous anger, troughs who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

nothing to do with anything said, but damn, it's a cool quote!

That was fun.

Lots of you pointed out lots of things I never even thought of. Perhaps now I can once again re-evaluate my beliefs. I like doing that.

It seems we'll never know how we got here or why, so in the mean time, I'm just gonna play Doom, be happy, and avoid dogmaticism. :D

Lots of logical stuff in this thread, but let me backtrack a bit.. Atheism is not lack of a belief. It is a firm belief that god does not exist.

a·the·ism Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Godlessness; immorality.

So in a way it is irrational. Really, the only truly rational belief stance is "I don't know."

Scientist: You seem to like saying that god and evolution cannot co-exist. But what evidence is there to suggest that god was or indeed was not responsible for creating the physical laws of reality that allow life to evolve?

BTW, you must be practicing some weird kind of science, because the science I know never allows you to come to the conclusion that something cannot possibly exist just because there is no evidence available that it does exist. You also seem to be forgetting that there is no scientific evidence that god does NOT exist.

Let me turn your view on its head: God's NON-existance is not required to explain anything.

methinks this thread is pointless

No, only the post you just made.

NiGHTMARE said:

Scientist: You seem to like saying that god and evolution cannot co-exist. But what evidence is there to suggest that god was or indeed was not responsible for creating the physical laws of reality that allow life to evolve?

BTW, you must be practicing some weird kind of science, because the science I know never allows you to come to the conclusion that something cannot possibly exist just because there is no evidence available that it does exist. You also seem to be forgetting that there is no scientific evidence that god does NOT exist.

Let me turn your view on its head: God's NON-existance is not required to explain anything.

Spat on I say old chap. Y'all got hutzpah mo tallywacker.

To whoever said that evolution is merely a theory:

Perhaps you need a brief explanation of evolution. It involves something called DNA. We already know, yes KNOW, not THINK, that DNA _definitely_ exists and is responsible for giving nearly all forms of life (I think there are a few single celled organisms without any) its physical characteristics. It's what makes you different than your parents and your siblings.

Evolution is when the DNA of a species as a whole changes in someway. It's happening all the time, although very, very slowly. Scientists have extensively studied remains of humans hundreds of years old where the DNA is much closer to that of a chimp than it currently is. This is PROOF that evolution exists.

We are now even capable of artificially FORCING evolution (although not neccessarily in the way it would have otherwise gone). Genetically engineered life, which is when the DNA is altered in some way,exists in many places around the world, although at this moment in time virtually all of it is plant life rather than animal life. Genetic engineering is proof in itself that DNA exists, just in case you were going to deny that it does.

If there is no such thing as evolution, perhaps you would care to explain how we now have breeds of animals, particularly cats and dogs, that didn't exist a few hundred years ago?

NiGHTMARE said:

To whoever said that evolution is merely a theory:

Care to explain how we have breeds of cats and dogs nowadays that didn't exist a few hundred years ago?

cross breeding, inbreeding and selective breeding. Look it up. 'evolution' takes millions of years, not a couple hundred. Take persian cats for example. They didn't used to have a flat face, until by inbreeding the cat correctly, the face has ended up that way. Unfortunately there's also a genetic problem that shows up every once in a while that results in a collasped nasal passage. Take the akita, who used to be a large, large speices of dog, now reduced to a mid sized dog with more of a a chance of serious spinal problems thanks to our fucking with its genetics, to make it smaller and 'cuter'. that's how it's done. they don't evolve right under our fucking noses.
Like, if we evolved from old world apes, why do apes exist at all? why didn't all the old world apes evolve into humans? did some decide to stay monkeys? i'd like to be a gibbon somtimes.

NiGHTMARE said:

Care to explain how we have breeds of cats and dogs nowadays that didn't exist a few hundred years ago?

I think evolution as a means of explaining things that have happened over the past few billion years is more up in the air. Evolution exists, it's a fact. But where and when and how it factors into the farthest ancient history does involve a lot of theories.

You're right that crossbreeding, selective breeding and interbreeding are not evolution, but you've misunderstood what I meant. I'll explain via a little story.

Imagine that all life is descended from what was created by God in the garden of Eden. As we know, there were only two humans in the garden, Adam and Eve. The DNA of all their children would be a cross between Adam's DNA and Eve's DNA. All of their grand children would still only have a mixture of Adam's DNA and Eve's DNA.

Lets travel forwards in time to the modern day. If everyone is descended from two people, this means that everyone's DNA is still only a mixture of these two people's DNA. This would basically mean that there is a maximum of two possible different hair colours, two different eye colours, two different skin colours and many other things. This is clearly not the case.

Add mutation of DNA into the picture (which is basically what evolution is) and you get a very different story. The hair colour, eye colour, skin colour, etc genes could all have very slowly changed, allowing for the huge number of different variations we have now.

What has all of this got to do with the breeding of new types of dogs and cats, you ask? Well, if the Garden of Eden existed, how many different dogs and cats do you think God created there? Because to get the current number of different breeds, he would have had to have created a lot, and I do mean a LOT. It's more likely that, if the garden of eden existed, he only created a few types of dogs and cats, and their DNA has mutated over time.

Also, did Adam and Eve have any genetic disorders? I certainly don't recall reading about any in the bible. But genetic disorders certainly exist today. And what are genetic disorders? They're where genes have mutated into something bad. Pretty conclusive proof that genetic mutation exists, and therefore evolution is not only possible, but inevitable.

m0l0t0v said:

Actually atheism has some "superiority". Why? because it is (can be) based on pure logic unlike religion. With all the scientific proof and all the BS in the bible and the history of the church it is more LOGICAL to assume there is NO God,

The lack of logicality in the church does not neccesarily prove that their ideas are false; this is a logical fallacy in itself.

In any case, as I see it logic itself would appear to be a property of the laws of cause and effect of the Universe we live in. The idea of "God" would suggest something beyond or on a higher level than the Universe. This is what I mean; you cannot prove it either way so there is no superiority to the atheism argument that I see.

I cannot show that there is a god. I cannot show that there is not. Therefore the wiser path would be to say "I do not know".

i think adam had a small pee-pee. after all he could hide the whole thing behind one little leaf. is that a genetic disorder?

seriously, tho Nightmare, i get ya now, interesting point.

Regarding atheist/atheism: AndrewB doesn't quote the source for his definition (which he embellishes considerably), but the fact that it links atheism with immorality makes its leanings pretty clear. In addition to giving a viable definition (disbelief in the existence of God or gods), it gives some other stuff that seems to come from common (possibly sloppy) usage. Of course it is quite correct for dictionaries to reflect common usage, while also giving precise definitions and accurate etymology.

While there is certainly some ambiguity in some definitions, the common thread in dictionaries (even those that would have us think that atheists are necessarily immoral!) seems to be the word "disbelief". Given that the prefix "dis-" means not/reversal/removal, this seems quite close to the word's derivation and the definition I gave.

Science is the study of the world created by God. Hence any conflict between the two is the result of a lack of understanding.

GS-1719 said:

A very convoluted argument that makes incorrect assumptions, and as a result draws false conclusions.

How?

GS-1719 said:

Science is the study of the world created by God. Hence any conflict between the two is the result of a lack of understanding.

No. Science is the study of the world but not necessarily created by god.

Like Scientist said.
If God created the universe, then what created God?
God doesn't just pop up out of nowhere, does he?

AndrewB said:

Lots of logical stuff in this thread, but let me backtrack a bit.. Atheism is not lack of a belief. It is a firm belief that god does not exist.So in a way it is irrational. Really, the only truly rational belief stance is "I don't know."

That would be Agnostic then, ag·nos·tic: "one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god."

My problem with the 'Stix's Wager' guide to why

atheism is clearly the safer choice

I don't have all day, so I will be brief.

Firstly the use of the word 'Reason' is incorrect. The atheist uses this word to define not only reason, but also evidence - only that which is recognised by the writer of course, i.e. nothing.

The article itself is very convoluted, notable mainly for the authors obvious lack of reason. The article is very subjective, failing to justify points such as their disdain for holy texts and the author's unjustified dislike for martyrs. There are other outrageous, unjustified claims made.

The author sees what he wants to see, his punch line being that atheism is statistically safer given the number of 'gods' available and the consequences of worshipping the 'wrong' one, which is lazy and totally pathetic.

fodders said:

That would be Agnostic then, ag·nos·tic: "one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god."

Check your dictionary, dude (or get a more detailed one). However it defines it, there ought to be some reference to a belief/view that some things (such as God or other non-material matters) are unknown/unknowable to man. [Derivation: agnostos (Greek) meaning unknown or unknowable.]

Edit: I should add to that a bit. The agnostic viewpoint is in a sense independent of whether one is an atheist or a theist. One can have religious faith while also believing that it is unknowable to man whether there actually is a God (it sounds like this is AndrewB's stance), and likewise one can be an agnostic atheist.

I have seen arguments that both versions of agnosticism are baloney, but that was in a book arguing that any alternative to straightforward atheism is also baloney.

After an angry debate among parents, Georgia's second-largest school district adopted a policy last night that requires teachers to give a "balanced education" about the origin of life, giving equal weight to evolution and biblical interpretations.

The district, Cobb County, had already come under attack this summer for attaching disclaimers to all science textbooks, saying that evolution "is a theory, not a fact," and should be "approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." On Wednesday, a parent and the Georgia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit demanding that the disclaimers be removed. Yesterday, they vowed to amend the suit to ask the court to reverse the new policy.

Grazza said:

Check your dictionary, dude (or get a more detailed one). However it defines it, there ought to be some reference to a belief/view that some things (such as God or other non-material matters) are unknown/unknowable to man. [Derivation: agnostos (Greek) meaning unknown or unknowable.]

I use Merriam-Webster:
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know. Date: 1869
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

GS-1719 said:

The author sees what he wants to see, his punch line being that atheism is statistically safer given the number of 'gods' available and the consequences of worshipping the 'wrong' one, which is lazy and totally pathetic.

Erm...no. I once wanted a religion, and I tried many, reading their laws and stances. After a while, I realised most religions belived that their god was the one true god and everyone else was wrong. SO naturaly this got me to thinking. If everyone says everyone else is wrong, then who the fuck is right. That just lead to major confusion until I got to this conclusion: either everyone is wrong, there is no god, or there is a god and it has done its best to hide itself. Thats about where I am right now.

fodders said:

I use Merriam-Webster:
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know. Date: 1869
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

OK, but you'd only quoted the bit at the end, which isn't really a definition, and merely one common usage of the term. A bit like defining a computer as "a machine used to play Doom" :)

Regarding evolution, this is a theory in much the same way that the Big Bang Theory is: it is the only explanation so far provided, and a mass of evidence supports it, but there are still many details of its processes to be worked out. I suppose the reason why it is evolution that gets it in the neck from the fundamentalists rather than the BBT is that cosmology isn't taught in most schools.

Talking of the Big Bang, quantum theory implies that anything before the Big Bang can have no causal effects after the Big Bang (due to the size of the universe being zero at that point). There are also models for the Big Bang that explain how "something" could have come from "nothing". This need have nothing to do with the question of whether there is a god, though. Stephen Hawking himself appears to be ambivalent on the subject of God, though his definition of "God" may well be something like "a rule that governs everything", which is probably a definition most of us could accept.

First of all, are any of you a parent? do you love your children? why do you love them? do you love them better if they love you in return and obey your commands? do you love them if they do not believe in you and your commands, trun their back toward you any time you try to talk to them, try to make their broders a non-believer like themselves, even try to hurt the ones that obey you, every time you send one of your better childs to talk to them, they hurt him or even kill him?

Second: There is only a true religion and that is loving the God by heart, seeing him through the heart, not eyes, (because he is not like his creation, and could not be seen), hearing from him trough the heart, or his messengers (all of them), talking to him through the heart, and asking for his help, or guidance, loving him so much that you would love anything that reminds you of him, including all his creation, the world!

Third: all the religions made by people, which contain loving anything other than God, like cows or stones, are creation of Devil, and all the ones that tell people to love the God are distorted examples of the trough religion, distorted by some people to ensure their power over other people, or ensure their worldy moneys or some other lust. but i`m sure there are still some people attending to the true religion and keeping their contact with their creator who knows all about them and their needs, before and after their death.