Thread: middle east again...

"lack of proof doesn't disprove the existance of God"

True, in the same way that the lack of proof for some giant invisable floating sheep does not disprove them.

"Faith is just faith, can certainly be a powerful force in life, and the faith may be true. Or not. Faith is believing in something without proof. "

Yup (well "proof" is too strong, evidence is better) and is utterly rediculous.

"Some religious point to the complexity and "design" of the universe as proof there must be some type of divine creator"

And it is precisely the decrease in this kind of ignorance that is causing the decrease in relgious people.

"As an aside, there's a recent alternative theory to the Big Bang that hypothesizes an oscillating universe with no beginning or end"

That theory is no longer believed by physicists, the universe is expanding and it's mass is not enough to ever cause it to contract.

"I don't have time right now to respond to everything because I'm at school, but I'm curious, do athiests believe that humans have a soul?"

Nope.

"I understand logic"

With all due respect if you are religious you are ignoring logic.

"but I can't refute the feeling that there are things going on in this world that can't be explained in a "logical" way; the bombings of the world trade center, bible propheys about the middle east coming true, the sickening things people do to each other(rape, perversian, murder) ect. (some of those may be "logically" exlained, but to me some of these are not understood)"

Everything can be explained, a million times people have said science will never know this! And science has promptly found out how/why/what/etc. There is a very logical and obvious explanation for the world trade bombings: of course the specific actions of the individual are irrational in themselves (hello religion) though that does not mean there is not an explanation for why they occur.

"I would be interested in seeing a article scientificly proving the nonexsistance of a soul. "

The soul cannot exist; it would viloate every law physics imaginable, and everything we have learnt about neurology shows the brain to be responsible for all of mans faculties.

"Can science explain everything? No"

Yes, do we know everything at this point? No.

" Logically science can prove that eagles mate for life. But it can't prove that evolution exsists "

LoL, *sigh* it is this kind of ignorance that (fortunately) is decreasing as education improves, and with it people coming to the realisation that the facts of the world do not fit the picture they are spun by the various religions.

Actually there is evidence for evolution on a limited scale. Since elephants have been killed for their tusks, their tusks have been getting smaller. People in china are small, people in america are big. This is due to them adapting to their environment. However, do not confuse a process with causality.

Originally posted by Malcar Morab
I can't pretend to understand everything, I understand logic, that I am sitting here, in front of a comuter typing, but I can't refute the feeling that there are things going on in this world that can't be explained in a "logical" way; the bombings of the world trade center, bible propheys about the middle east coming true, the sickening things people do to each other(rape, perversian, murder) ect. (some of those may be "logically" exlained, but to me some of these are not understood)

A rational explanation is not necessisarily structured logically, although to be rational it must not violate logic. So logic is only marginally pertinent to those questions you mention, that is, as a formal way to find fallacies in the thought process. Those problematic aspects of the human condition you list are understandable in the context of basic psychology, which is based on rational observation and analysis.

For instance, if we look at the issue of Biblical prophecy we see that it is much more a case of wishful thinking than actual prophecy being fulfilled.(This is my opinion, anyway). There are many passages in the bible that could as easily be regarded as prophectic as those that are pointed to, but are disregarded because they were not "fulfilled" . And even within those passages the Christian conveniently disregards the troublesome stuff that doesn't coincide with reported events. If there were a God who wanted to make "prophecies" (for miracle proofs or otherwise) you would expect something very specific and unambigious instead of the broad, figurative kinds of allusions we see. If the bible had said something like, "In 1939 a war of agression will break out in the north and will engulf the whole world and a mad dictator will kill 1/3 of all living Jews", then we would have something that would be impressive. Instead we find figurative allusions that may or may not pertain to event (many of which are of questionable validity themselves) interspersed within a broader statement, many parts of which are absolutely irrelevent.

The miraculous part is that so many people are fooled. It is the standard fortune teller's trick of throwing out a lot of "bait" and waiting for a bite. The psychological phenomenon they exploit is the human propensity for having the gong go off when they make a "hit" but to completely forget and disregard the "misses".

People find it hard to understand things they can't see, hear, or touch.

I would be interested in seeing a article scientificly proving the nonexsistance of a soul.

Any article that attemted to do so would be bogus. It can't happen. How can you prove the nonexistence of a soul. Non-existent things don't leave evidence of their non-existence.

If "proof" is what is desired, the burden to supply "proof" is on those who positively claim that such a thing as a soul exists. I can't say that everyone has their own personal leprechaun who looks after them and expect people to believe it. How preposterous would it be for me to claim you should believe this until someone was able to prove it was false.

There are an infinite number of possible claims that could be made about the nature of the world and the cosmos. If someone wants to positively uphold any one of them it is incumbent on them to offer evidence and reasoning that would justify the belief. Otherwise, we would be obliged to believe anything anyone claimed until we could prove it false.

Can science explain everything? No, it does not, it only pecks away at things. Logically science can prove that eagles mate for life. But it can't prove that evolution exsists (I must echo the feelings of another member by saying lets not go off on that tangent)

Science, of course, cannot explain everything. Science seeks only to work toward a more coherent world view that is consistent, both internally (in that it doesn't contradict itself) and externally( it doesn't contradict objective observation). To the extent that a theory or hypothesis fulfills this requirement and adds to the body of knowledge thereby making the worldview more coherent and complete, it is accepted (provisionally at least utill better refinement comes along). We won't go off on a tangent to examine why evolution if general and natural selection in particular beautifully satisfy this criteria.

If the all the answers cannot be found in science, where then are they?

Why on earth would you want all the answers. The richest and most fulfilling aspect of existence is the search for knowledge. Certainty, on the otherhand, can be directly correlated with both ignorance and oppression. Einstein, perhaps the greatest mind of all time, was not certain of things. On the other hand, the Nazi functionaries, who led people to the gas chambers were quite certain that they had embraced the true philosophy of life. Do you think Torquemada was uncertain about his "faith" as he tortured heretics into submission. The same for John Calvin. Stalin and Pol Pot were likewise certain that they were following the "true way".

I would like someone to explain what is so great about certainty.

Clyde, you posed some very good questions on free will, which deserve a answqer, and I shall respond as soon as I am able. However, a quick point about the soul before I go to math class:

If we do not have a soul, we can not have free will, since we would be entirely subject to the laws of physics. Since our brains are just a bunch of molecules bumping around, our thoughts actions etc. would be entirely subject to what they (the molecules) do. A soul (or spirit) is nescesarry effect small changes in them to modify our actions.

A rock is also a bunch of molecules. It has no soul, therefore it has no conciusness, and has no will.

btw, what is your definition of life, and do you believe in free will?

"Actually there is evidence for evolution on a limited scale"

Err... evolution is not debated by educated people anymore than the Earth going round the sun is, only by those who lack a basic grounding in biology doubt evolution. Even the CHURCH has accepted evolution (though they kicked and screamed, but this time Galileo could not be silenced ) I suggest you find yourself a biology text book.

"This is due to them adapting to their environment. However, do not confuse a process with causality."

Causality is cause and effect, what the juice are you talking about?