Thread: God

Cyde what would consitute proof of God?
Varrious outside sources conferming the New Testement

Bin Laden went nuts when US forces used Saudi Arabia as a a miltary base, why did he go nuts? Because its the "holy land". Suicide bombers are lot easier to come by if people believe that the instant you die you will get beamed up to heaven with your 72 virgin brides await you.

First I don't view the suicide bombers as martyers, in fact they are cowards. They did not die for the belives they dided because they chose to. Second if we removed religion Bin Laden would still be Jelious of America's wealth and Power, and could recruit sucide bombers with telling them that there familes would be taken care of after they died.

"There is a BIG difference between thinking that you are right, and thinking that you are SO right that everyone else must change their belief to yours (this case that science is the answer)."

If you want the truth about the universe science is the answer, because logic is the answer. I can't see how anyone can actually disagree with this, what is the alternative?

The notion of 'forcing' people to change their beliefs doesn't make a great deal of sense, you can't force people to change their beliefs you can only point out why their beliefs are illogical and why illogical beliefs don't work, thats it, whether people take what you say to heart isn't up to you. Like i said the reason i would snap my fingers and wipe out religion is the same reason i would snap my fingers and wipe out famine, disease, racism, because i think it harms people.

"This is the exact same thinking that you so hate from religions."

Yes but i have logic and reason! They have indocrination. Thats a big big difference.

"Religions look at the world, think that atheists and other religions are screwing things up and making the world a worse place, and then go and cause all the atrocities that you hate them for"

And what do they base that on? Rational thoughtt? Or Indocrination? And what do I base my conclusions on? I haven't been brought to hate religion, when i was 10 i believed in Jesus because i was taught about him at school, from an early age both my parents have always told me its up to me to decide what to believe in for myself.

" You think you are 100% correct, they think they are 100% correct"

Hold on i do not think i'm 100% correct about religion being bad, what I am 100% certain about is how to go about finding answers. Now if we forget being PC and we think about what we are actually talking about here, we see that my view really isnt so unreasonable.

Either you use logic to solve problems or you do not. Now tell me how effective not-using-logic is at solving problems? Think about it. Its ridiculous! Of course the only way to work out what is and what isn't is through logic, of course there is no alternative!

"Who thinks science is the one and only answer? Scientists"

Science is the only answer to deducing the properties of the universe, it is not teh answer to social conflict, moral issues, etc. etc.

"You blame religion for creating an "us vs them" attitude, what are you doing right now? Creating a "science vs religion" attitude."

Science vs. religion, is ultimately what will end religion, of course its also why religion screws up education. Science and religion ARE incompatible they both describe the same universe, and make starkly different claims. In that sense the "us vs. them" that occurs between science and religion is inevitable. Oh some people will claim otherwise....... but...... well......they are wrong, as a science don, i assure you they are wrong. Look at the %ges of the national academy of sciences who believe in God.

"How many people in this thread have you "cemented differences" with?""

When i talk about "cementing differences" i mean between peoples. "Us and them" across a small internet chat room is fairly irrelevant "us and them" accross populations of millions of people is not, and that is what religion does. The ONLY reason Pakistan and India are at each others throats is religion.

Anyhow sure i ........ a few people off, because what I say is extremely un-PC it goes against all socially acceptable opinions. But i'm making people think, that alone is worth something.

"Logic is by far our best choice right now to discover the truth, but logic is a human created idea, and isn't even uniform throughout the human race"

Logic isn't really human created, per say, its difficult to pin down a description of logic that without using words like "logic" and "reason". Logic and maths seem to be essentially the same thing applied to different things, and maths is certainly not a human created idea. When you consider these ideas as abstract its easy to say that logic is only human created as if there could be some alternative, but when you actually think about it, you can see that there really can't be one. Logic is uniform throughout the human race, its just many people do not apply it to everything, they still grasp the concept.

"What is logical to you is not logical to someone else"

The only possiblity is that they are starting from a different set of givens, or that either they, or I have made an error.

If A = B and B = C then A = C that is logic, it is uniform, no-one can claim that logicaly A != C, if they do so they have simply made an error.

"and why should an idea created by an insignificant speck that exists in the equivalent of a nonosecond to the universe be the one and only way to discover the truth?"

Your not seeing what logic is, your doing what philosophy students do, your making it abstract and then forgetting what it actually is. I do not have the words to write down a sufficient description of why logic is the only way, but think of my example.

If A equals B and B equals C and you want to know the relationship between A & C you have two choice, logic or guessing, there is nothing else you can do.

"Do you think a dung beetle has the slightest clue what is going on around it?"

Nope, well not very much anyway.

"Why do you assume human scientists know what is going on around them to such a degree that it is impossible for them to be wrong? "

Dung beetles can't model fluid dynamics, quantum mechanics, electro-statics, and heaven knows how many other -ics.

Our models closely resemble reality in many ways, BUT that doesn't mean the model is right. I'm not saying the FINDINGs of science are 100% right, that would be absurd, i'm saying that if you want to work out the answer to a problem the only way of going about it is logic, and thats what science does.

"We are much lower than dung beetles in terms of the universe around us."

This statement does not make sense, its an irrelevent comparison.

"If logic is simply taking the evidence and making conclusions about them, how many times has that failed us?"

It hasn't failed us, not once, logic does not give you the answer, it gives you the current best bet. But it is the only way to get the current best bet.

"Yes, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for science and very little if any for religion, but one cannot discount religion without all the evidence"

I've looked at a great amount of evidence for religion in my time, and everytime i look i find a scientific refuation. Have you got ALL the evidence supporting Earth as a sphere? All of it? And All the evidence for Earth as a disc? No? Yet you are certain that Earth is a sphere like object and not a disk.

"There is no reason to believe that science 100 years from now won't make discoveries that start pointing to the possibility of god, except that it is unlikely that they will."

And there is no reason to believe that science 100 years from now won't make discoveries that start point to the possiblity of invisible elphants, solid gold live pixies, in fact to ANYTHING, to a flat Earth, to a matrix world, to anything at all, EXCEPT that it is unlikely that they will. And that is what is significant.

You can try and argue that since we can never know absolutely we should keep an open mind, but its because you cannot grasp the probabilities invovled, our brain is fairly useless at judging probability if i say 1 in 10^98 what does that number mean to you? Nothing. Me neither, but i can tell you that you would be safe betting your life on an event of that probability not occuring at a given point in time. We DO accept things as certain, all of us do, not just me, you too, you are certain that your house has walls, that you have two hands, that the loon in the nuthouse isn't actually ShakeSpear on the run from mutant killer cats. Your certain BECAUSE you deem the probability of the alternative too low. Well the argument fits perfectly to God.

"I agree with almost everything you say Clyde except the belief that it is impossible that we are wrong"

Oh i don't think its impossible that we're wrong, i think its impossible that we're going about it in the wrong way.

"I agree that religion has created many problems in this world, but getting rid of religion is not the answer"

Are you certain?

"To me, a much more logical solution would be to teach people the importance of accepting what other people believe and that there is more than one viable view on the world"

Thats great, and its the party line, the socially acceptable opinion, it makes your grandparents nod approvingly and everyone at the dinner goes home saying "Well he's a smart lad". But i don't buy it, there are plenty of different views in the world that are completely "viable", a complete range or ethical, political, scientific opinions, that fit the facts and are all reasonable and valid. But irrational beliefs do NOT fit the facts, are NOT reasonable and are NOT valid, they are based on nothing.

Opinions should NOT be "respected" just because they are opinions! People should be respected, opinions should be judged on merit.

In an ideal world your way works, everyone gets along and everyone respects each others beliefs, but we aren't in a perfect world, human nature has an edge to it. If you have irrational beliefs viewed as socially acceptable then you have no where to draw the line:

How do you argue against beliefs that are irrational and socially bad, if you preach respect for beliefs that are irrational and at best socially neutral? In fact how do you teach people anything about anything?

I believe there is a God who created everyone: Ok i respect that.

I believe the Earth is flat: Ok i respect that.

I believe little green martians from pluto live in my basement: Ok i respect that.

I believe white people are superior to blacks: Ok I respect that.

They're all opinions, since we are no longer evaluating them based on logic, and simply cow-towing to social acceptability, thats where we will end up. In cloud-cuckoo land!

You also undermine education because you fail to teach people how to reason. The world does not need religion and i am fairly sure, (no im not fairly sure, i cannot say i am 100% certain, but i'm pretty close), that we would be a darn site better off without it.

"This would get rid of almost all of the problems you mentioned while not sacrificing a person's right to believe whatever they want"

I don't believe in sacrificing anything, is teaching history in school "sacrificing a person's right to believe whatever they want about history"? Don't know about you but I call that educating people.

"People look out, see that everything appears to revolve around the earth, the world isn't round because people would fall off the bottom, and made logical assumptions based on the evidence at hand"

Except the ancient Greeks knew the Earth was round thousands of years before Columbus ever set foot in a boat. What stopped that knowledge in its tracks? I'll give you a hint, it starts with an 'R' and ends with an 'N'.

"And if you were suddenly told one day that your ancestors were apes, you wouldn't object to this?"

I'm not saying that everyone would have immediately jumped on board, that never happens it didn't happen for Newtonian mechanics, for quantum mechanics, relativity, any great conceptual revolution takes time to sink in, BUT compare those revolutions in terms of public acceptance with ones that have battled against religion.

"And the answer to your question is yes, I do know a few atheists who don't believe in evolution"

Ok, its a fair point, some atheists are just as bad as religious people. What I mean to say is that they have not formed their conclusions in any kind of rational manner, they have most likely been handed their opinions by their parents or by someone whom they respect. And i suppose evolution is a bad example because in some parts of the US education including education of non-religious people has been seriously hampered by religious influence.

Originally posted by Clyde
Science vs. religion, is ultimately what will end religion, of course its also why religion screws up education. Science and religion ARE incompatible they both describe the same universe, and make starkly different claims. In that sense the "us vs. them" that occurs between science and religion is inevitable. Oh some people will claim otherwise....... but...... well......they are wrong, as I science don i assure you they are wrong. Look at the %ges of the national academy of sciences who believe in God.

hasnt this battle w/science vs. religion been going on as long as there has been religion. so how will science vs. religion now end religion any more than it did 2000 years ago???

Stop ignoring me Cyde, and aswer these questions

1. What consitues Proof of God?

2. Even if scientist are able to create life how do they know that it is how it actuly happend? They were not there, they have no way of knowing they are correct.

Also your confusing what an opionion is, and opion is something along the lines of Snails are delisious. You can not scientificly prove that snails are delisious, or that there not.

The earth is flat is not an opinon, the bible does not state the earth is flat. All refrenceds that people use from the bible stating that the earth is flat are figures of speach. Just because some people decided that they supported a flat earth does not make religon evil.

Because for 2000 years science has been pushing religion back, by taking away reasons for God.

The priests says: Of course there is a god who do you think makes the sun come up in the morning? Why are some people punished with sickness? Where did man come from? What is that flash fire accross the heavens (shooting star). Etc. etc.

Science answers all of the questions and unfortuneately for th priest none of the answers are "because God makes it so".

No where in the bible does it say: God is always controling everything, or anything along those lines. Greek and Roman Myths support this idea but the Bible does not.

Science's main assault religion started with Darwin though, because that was religions last bastion of defense, no one else could explain life, well geez now science can. Neurology will and is erroding all religious concepts of "free-will" and the "soul".

The findings of science continually point away from a God, and limit him in ways that are unacceptable to religion.

That is why science will eventual wipe it out. Of course it will take a long time, out of the top scientists 93% are non-believers, that percentage will increase, and will gradually filter through into the public via education.

I've read your past post on other threads about free-will. You seem to think that free-will means that my arm can do what ever it feels like. Free will does nto imply this, free will is the abilty for me to make descions, my mind controls the arm but who controls the mind?

i dont know, i still dont see religion just fading away. no matter what some people are just going to believe in some higher form of power.

>>Neurology will and is erroding all religious concepts of "free-will" and the "soul".

Thats got to be my favorite one at the moment.

>>Cyde what would consitute proof of God?
>>Stop ignoring me Cyde

STOP CALLING HIM CYDE! ... sorry... I mentioned this before. Its screwing me up.

>>You can not scientificly prove that snails are delisious

Well, yes you can. You can determine the level of pleasure derived from a specimins consuption of a snail. You cant, however, prove that they are universally delicious, because, well, they aren't. Its hard to prove something that isnt true... I'm sure you're finding that out right about now, actually... *ahem*

>>The earth is flat is not an opinon, the bible does not state the earth is flat.

Except that things that are round dont have corners.

>>stating that the earth is flat are figures of speach

Gotcha. I heard that Genesis is one big figure of speach too. Actually so's John and Paul and the rest of 'em. Whos going to contradict me?

You seem to think that free-will means that my arm can do what ever it feels like. Free will does nto imply this, free will is the abilty for me to make descions, my mind controls the arm but who controls the mind?

Not what he was implying at all (or myself for that matter). You are correct; Nothing is controlling the mind. We're "free" to make decisions. Its simply that the decision reached is not random in nature, merely one that is a direct result of the current enviroment and the exact state of the brain at the point in question.

>>First I don't view the suicide bombers as martyers, in fact they are cowards. They did not die for the belives

Thats not their side of the story. Doesnt really matter what you think about them; It only matters what they were thinking and what their motivation was.

Ok Sentaku, i am not deliberately ignoring you, (though i notice you failed to answer any of the points addressed to you in my previous post to you) its just i'm debating with grown-ups now, and it seems it takes a fair portion of time to dole out the posts that i have been so, however i will direct what remains of my sanity towards your post.

"1. What consitues Proof of God"

There is no such thing as proof, presumeably you mean what constitutes evidence for God? Well a big booming voice that anounced the solution to quantum gravity, and broke a few laws of physics would be a start.......

"2. Even if scientist are able to create life how do they know that it is how it actuly happend? They were not there, they have no way of knowing they are correct"

Sentaku, tell me something, if there is animal standing infront of you, its got 4 legs, its smaller than a horse, its bigger than a pony, in fact it looks just like a donkey, it smells like a donkey, if you lick it, it tastes like a donkey, and the noise it makes sounds just like a donkeys bray (unless you in the bible, in which case it will be talking to you....) What animal is it Sensaku?

If and one would hope when we find life, and we see that it can be made using chemicals that just so happened to be around during prebiotic Earth, and we draw out a reaction path-way that shows exactly how it formed from said chemicals.

What was the cause of life? Was it chemistry or was it God. Is it a donkey or is it a man in a donkey suit cunningly disguised?

"Also your confusing what an opionion is, and opion is something along the lines of Snails are delisious"

I am, am I? An opinion can be more or less correct depending on what it is applied to, with regards to taste there is no right or wrong answer for the food because the taste is not a property of the food its a property of the person who is eating it. Ie. whether or not you find snails delicious is a property of your brain, not the snail.

To put it another way taste is subjective, it is meaningless to say definitively "snails are delicious" the only meaningfull statement is "I find snails delicious". All opinions therefore are equally true because they are actually describing different things: you find snails delicious, I find snails foul, no contradiction, subjective property. However you can have opinions on subjects that are NOT subjective like for example the geometry of the Earth, in that instances the the geometry IS a property of the Earth, so then asking absolutely what is the geometry of the Earth IS a valid question (unlike asking "are snails delicious?" which is not), and therefore whilst there can be many opinions on the subject some can be much closer to the truth than others. In my opinion the Earth is a disc, is a lot further off than in my opinion the Earth is a sphere.

"The earth is flat is not an opinon, the bible does not state the earth is flat"

.... Sentaku i know it might amaze you to hear but the bible is not infact the sole source of human knowledge *gasp*. The bible does not state that the liver is where bile is produced, that does not make it false.

Anyhow i know you don't think that the bible says the Earth is flat but, the flat Earthers do. They're pretty convinced of it....... after all as lighatdawn has pointed out spheres don't have corners.....

"No where in the bible does it say: God is always controling everything, or anything along those lines. Greek and Roman Myths support this idea but the Bible does not. "

Sentaku it just occured to me that my previous explanation of geometry vs. delicious will probably be for nought......... I don't really care whether or not the bible says God is controlling everything, if you read what I said, i was explaining why science has been pushing back religion. Now like it or not the church has always used unexplained phenomenon to counter arguments of doubt, those arguments have been knocked down by science, because of this the 'need' for a God keeps on getting diminished; prior to Darwin, God was still 'needed' to explain the origin of life, well not so anymore, science makes God more and more redundant, and that is one of the reasons why it pushes religion back.

"I've read your past post on other threads about free-will. You seem to think that free-will means that my arm can do what ever it feels like. Free will does nto imply this, free will is the abilty for me to make descions, my mind controls the arm but who controls the mind?"

What do you think free-will is? Tell me if this desciption fits free will:

A photon passes through my lense and is diffracted onto a spot called the fovea on the back of my retina, it breaks down a molecule called rhedopsin which splits into to other molecules, this results in a nervious impulse being sent down the optic nerve, this impulse together with a million others are passed on from the optic nerve in the visual cortex of the brain, a giant neural net performs various 'calculations' on this 'input' and as a result several million 'output' signals are sent from the brain down the nerves untill they hit a specific muscle synapse where they trigger the release of a neuro-transmitter called acetyl-choline, this diffuses across the synapse and binds to a receptors in the muscle fibre causing via various other steps i won't go in-to a muscle contraction.

Does that sound like free-will to you? Because i just described (a stupidly simplified version of) what occurs when you respond to a visual stimuli, for example when someone waves to you and you wave back.

There is no soul, the mind is just a huge chemical computer, thats it, yes a stupidly complicated computer, and yes we are concious and we haven't got any real understanding of how yet. BUT all we are is a giant chemistry set. Now if you wish to consider that as "free will", go for it, it means computers, bacteria, anything in-fact has "free-will". Furthermore it doesn't work as an argument against problems like the problem of evil, it just shows God to be alame designer.

HOLY BLACK BABY JESUS

**** man, you don't need to drag everybody else down into your retarded, self-pitying angst. forget the goddamn religious debate. in fact, you should probably jump off a bridge or something for bringing this for nearly 500 pages. your chemical machine is on a rampage of insensibility and stupidity! hooray!

YOU ALL WIN

"I don't think I was completely clear, what I meant was do you think there is one and only one truth to everything. In other words, EVERYTHING has an answer - not necesarily the same answer to everything, but each has its own correct answer"

An answer, hmm, that depends what you mean by everything.

Do all possible questions have answers? I would say no. Because there are plenty of invalid questions.

I think that truth exists, in an objective way, how we interpret that truth (ie. make sense of it) on the other hand is another thing.

I believe the universe has definitive properties, the mass of a proton IS 1.6726485 * 10^-27 Kg (of course the real figure is one to an infinite number of sig fig. that i can't write down). There is no relative truth to objective problems (what is the Earth's geometry), only relative truth to relative problems (do snails taste nice).