CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
God of The Gaps
HOKAY, so I've got a bone to pick with Atheists, and whomever this term applies to.
There is this ordeal called "God of The Gaps" that supposes that for everything that science cannot explain, is used by some to say "This gives proof for god's existence since it is unknowable, thus far."
Hence, using God as a means for understanding everything that science has not yet attempted to explain, and/or discovered. EXAMPLE: S C I E N C E = S I E C E
If a scientists (whom does not believe in god), can claim that he/she will one day full comprehend and understand everything (including the "unknowables, like dark matter, dark energy; we know very little of these particular things in the universe), then the "God of The Gaps", somewhat makes sense, yet hardly. However, it does not because one day scientists will never fully understand and "know" all that there is to know.
And so, the more proper would be "Since a scientist does not and can not know and fully understand everything that which it attempts to understand, then the "God of The Gaps" scenario becomes obsolete." (This is the more proper way, I believe)
Science is not the end all to anything, and therefore, putting "god" in the gaps that "science has not understood yet" is fucking ridiculous. Ridiculous in the sense that science only "knows" about 4 percent of (their estimated 100 percent) and so therefore, people that believe in GOD should not be considered putting their beliefs in the "gaps that which science has not explained yet."
Believing in God is similar to a scientist believing dark matter and dark energy is present; we know it's there, we can test it, but we cannot see it, nor feel it (physically), nor taste it, [ECT].
Believing in God is similar to a scientist believing dark matter and dark energy is present; we know it's there, we can test it, but we cannot see it, nor feel it (physically), nor taste it, [ECT].
So what's the problem?
The problem is the four words I bolded in your statement above. "We can test it."
We know that light can be bent in the presence of enough matter- this is called gravitational lensing. We can see several instances of gravitational lensing in many images taken from the Hubble Space Telescope. If we can see how much the light is being bent, and know how much matter it takes to bend light that much, then we know how much matter there is. But, when we look with all the different tools we have, we don't see enough matter to cause this bending of light. There must be matter we don't "see" causing it; and, since we can't see it, we call it dark matter. We can test it by observing it's interaction with things we can see, and we can measure it out to accounting for some 80% of the matter in the known universe.
Can you show me a test for "measuring" God? If not, then no; they're not similar.
Anyway, I feel one of the big problems with the application of "God of the gaps" thinking is that it's based on the premise that mankind (or, more specifically, science) currently knows all it will ever know about the universe. That we're at the apex of knowledge today, and we'll never ever learn anything new. That, a thousand years from now, none of the "gaps" will have been filled in.
If history is any indication, this is a very unstable foundation to base any line of thinking on. Just think of how many supernatural explanations have been superseded by scientific explanations. Now, try to think of how many scientific explanations have been superseded by supernatural explanations.
If you believe science knows only 4 percent, and will never know any more than that, I'd like to know how you come to such a conclusion. Conversely, if you believe science knows 4 percent, but eventually will learn more, then I'd like to know how you determine what the limit is. Will we ever know 5 percent? 10 percent? How about 50 percent? 75? How do you know where we'll stop? And how do you know none of the "gaps" God currently explains won't be filled in by that point?
And that's the problem with "God of the gaps" logic. Rather than supporting your hypothesis with testable evidence, you rely on the lack of knowledge from a competing hypothesis as being sufficient support. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. You actually have to show evidence that you're right, not just that the other person could be wrong.
I believe science believes it only knows 4 percent, of an imaginary 100 percent, created by scientists, for scientists. NOT THAT science will only know 4 percent, but that it will never know 100 percent.
I believe science will never understand and achieve all that which it seeks and desires; my evidence is the universe is all too grand for the human mind to completely understand, via science. (especially science)
God of the Gaps argument for a creationist is that since science will never achieve and know that which it seeks and desires, then for a person to say "This means that God must be true since there are unknowns." is not far off of the radar of understanding life, yet some scientists refute this so quickly, for evidence do they have that they will figure everything out at some point?
Science claims that for everything it has not known, "god" is used to fill in the gaps of understanding it; yet science will never know everything that which it wants to know.
Finally, this argument is actually sound. The evidence is obvious.
Science and religion are two sides of the same coin.
The only difference is the individual reasoning.
A religious view is a logical thing to have because giving yourself a strong mythological belief will allow you to have incentive towards living your life well and not be distracted by certain things that would otherwise limit your existence.
A scientific tendency is logical thing to have because the desire to learn the truth greatly contributes to your ability to serve the advancement of the human race, or perhaps just simply serve others by making them happier because of what you discover. (After all, Albert Einstein didn't want the theory of relativity to have irrefutable evidence, but he did not deny the evidence because he wanted to serve others, not himself)
Because of the nature of these two things, I possess both. No need to have a conflict between the two. They both help, in theory, and they both have the potential to limit our advancement. We don't need to eliminate either for the human race to prosper, we simply need to use both wisely.
You are right. Science probably won't know everything so God is a possibility. Where God in the gaps gets interesting is to look at history. At one point in time, "god" explained almost everything man saw in the natural world. Now, god explains almost nothing because science has shown over and over that in fact it's not "god", and that there is a real, natural explanation. God in the gaps is more relative when you look at that history. Its very difficult to put God in any gap, when science proves over and over that it can fill that gap.
The other thing that gives science "more credit" is because by it's very nature science is constantly trying to prove itself wrong. Scientists are skeptical, admin fallibility, can't rely on faith (feelings), and benefit financially and professorially by proving each other wrong. This is a powerful feedback mechanism that keep scientists and the scientific process honest and on the right track to finding real answers. The faithful cant say the same for their belief in god. As a mater of fact, many religions consider it blasphemy to even "contemplate" that god does not exist.
Science cannot fill every gap that which it seeks, and even many scientists claim this! The others that believe one day they will understand everything there is to know about the universe are more delusion than a person believing in unicorns, or even a god.
I'm saying that the GOD OF THE GAPS is defined and perceived that "God" explains everything that "science cannot".
I say that since science cannot achieve everything it wants to (and that's to 'understand and observe' the WHOLE universe) and so then having put "God" into the "unknown, the gaps" of science is not proper or right.
Since science is not the end all to "truth", then there are no GAPS.
And so if a person says "Well, since science cannot explain these phenomena, then it must be true."
(The belief in a God or GODS is not so crazy after all)
And I say, who's to say that what these people believe in are as "true" as what science claims to be true.
There is no such thing as GOD OF THE GAPS.
In short, God can exist and does, and science does exist.
And of course there's nothing crazy about concluding that God must be at all. The only crazy is atheism, the stuff of pure irrationalism, pseudo-scientific claptrap imagining that science can affirm or falsify anything beyond the empirical.
There is no such thing as a God of the Gaps. That’s nothing but atheistic baby talk about nothing at all.
The only gaps around here are those in the atheist’s brainless blather.
There once was an atheist operating under the illusion that greater scientific knowledge was the very solution to the problem of infinite material regression. But the more that we learned, the more he got burned by the fact that the problem went on without any definitive resolution . . . in spite of his materialistic delusion.
First, you assert that we can't ever know everything there is to know. Granted, this is probably true, but we don't yet know what sort of things we can't know. There are a few things we can't delve deeply into now, sure, but sometimes it just takes one quick discovery or invention to open up a whole world of knowledge. We don't know when those will happen or what overall impact on our knowledge they will have, so it is foolish to assume that anything we can't yet suss out is...unsussable.
Why is "God of the Gaps" thinking wrong?
a) it is dishonest. It claims we know something that we don't.
b) it is kind of stupid, as it shows favoritism to ignorance.
c) it presupposes a supernatural cause to something before we've even had a good chance to study it.
You've said it. "but we don't yet know what sort of things we can't know."
This is precisely the point...As much as you agree that sciecne can't know "everything" you say "well we haven't gotten that far yet, so who knows."
My philosophy is not within the realms of "what if", I believe in the "what is"...
WHAT IS is that science does not know everything. And so, therefore, there are "things in this universe" that does not need an ouch of "modern science" to understand it.
THE GOD OF THE GAPS should not exist.
It's sole purpose is blurry; there are no GAPS, anywhere; there are relative truths, and truths, no GAPS. Especially since most parties ought to agree that science is not the end all.
As much as you agree that sciecne can't know "everything" you say "well we haven't gotten that far yet, so who knows."
Actually, I said we PROBABLY can't know everything. The limits of our ability to learn and understand are unknown as of now, but since we are still discovering new things, we can be assured that we haven't reached them. It is possible that our only true limit is time; that there is simply too much to know for us to know it all before we die off.
Anyway though, what is wrong about saying "we haven't gotten that far yet"? Its honest. Saying that we know for a fact that God is responsible is dishonest. At absolute best he is a hypothesis, and a poor one at that since it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. The only reason God is even considered capable of doing everything attributed to him is because we include "all powerful" as part of the definition right out of the gate.
My philosophy is not within the realms of "what if", I believe in the "what is"...
You believe in a force that exists outside of the realm of observation, testability and necessity. Your philosophy isn't just "in the realm of 'what if'", it is composed ENTIRELY of possibility instead of confirmed truth.
WHAT IS is that science does not know everything. And so, therefore, there are "things in this universe" that does not need an ouch of "modern science" to understand it.
Ludicrous reasoning. Again, we don't know what we can't know. So there is nothing at this point that is definitively unknowable.
It's sole purpose is blurry
No, its purpose is quite clear: to identify an error in the reasoning of those make the claim. It does not, on its own, refute the claim, it simply says that the reasoning is weak. Example:
Theist: What caused the universe?
Atheist: The Big Bang.
Theist: Well, what caused the Big Bang?
Atheist: We aren't sure, but there are theories...
Theist: You don't know! So it had to be God.
The Theist is ignoring that there are proposals and that those proposals are better supported than God. The theist is also making a fact claim, while failing to support the claim or even undermine the competing claim in any way but "AHA! You don't really know", when the theist his/herself does not really know either.
there are no GAPS, anywhere;
"Gaps" refers to gaps in human knowledge. Are you claiming that there are no gaps in our knowledge?
You continue to claim that everything science has understood thus far is truth. When OBVIOUSLY that's not the only source of truth. You should then realize that since science is not the end all to truth, there MUST be other sources and logics that suppose a different truth, other than the observable truth.
Personally, I believe in both what I can see and what I cannot see.
That is, I believe in both science and the observation by means of sight and testable knowledge and experiments/experiences gained, and I ALSO believe in what I cannot see, the "unknowns thus far".
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a theist to say "Well since you do not know, I will believe in X, Y, Z." Where's the logic and rules of this world that states "ALL TRUTHS OTHER THAN THE TRUTHS THAT SCIENCE ADMITS ARE FALSE AND ILLOGICAL"? Science is lame when they say "WELL HOLD ON THERE COWBOY, BECAUSE ONE DAY SCIENCE COULD UNDERSTAND IT SO DO NOT CALL IT TRUTH UNTIL WE SAY IT IS, OR NOT"... And that's fucking ridiculous.
There is no such thing, and IF people tend to believe that science is the end all, THEY'RE the ones that are delusional, not a theist, or any other person or persons whom believe in X, Y, Z anything "supernatural or other worldly".
ou continue to claim that everything science has understood thus far is truth.
No. I claim it is supportable, that it stands on a foundation of logic and testing. God does not, and therefore is not useful as an alternative.
When OBVIOUSLY that's not the only source of truth.
Then what is a source of truth to support God?
Personally, I believe in both what I can see and what I cannot see.
I can't see an electron, or gravity, or the iron at the core of the earth, but I believe in these things because they are well substantiated.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a theist to say "Well since you do not know, I will believe in X, Y, Z."
If the truth is not demonstrable, then yes, there is something wrong with claiming it as truth. And saying that God is true simply because a naturalistic answer is not currently available is, well, poor reasoning.
There is no such thing, and IF people tend to believe that science is the end all, THEY'RE the ones that are delusional, not a theist, or any other person or persons whom believe in X, Y, Z anything "supernatural or other worldly".
By all means, offer non-scientific support for your claim then. If it is logically valid, I will submit to it.
You claim that "Gods" truth (or the quest to understand God(s)) is not a source of understanding the world around around us. Why is that? What evidence can science give to discount a person is happy when they think of God? Or what evidence can science give to discount when a person claims to have been a part of a "miracle". Surely science will say "you've just got emotions thats why you're happy." and surely science will say "miracles don't exist, they're merely coincidences." So what's your point in refuting personal testimonies from since the beginning of our species?
NEXT...
You ask what is the source of truth to support God?
I say, it's a matter of perspective and personal experience, whomever it may to be to. There is no right or wrong answer; for the quest to understand and know X, Y, Z god(s), is very personal. Who are you to claim that these beliefs are not in fact truths, whether to them or universally?
These truths that I spoke of are and have been demonstrable since the beginning of our species, again, who are you to claim these people are pulling things out of their religious asses?
THIS IS MY FAVORITE PART ABOUT YOUR BANTERING...
You claim that what science does not know AND if a person claims they believe in something because science has not known it yet, it's poor reasoning!? That's ridiculous, man. C'mon. enough with that nonsense. This logic alone makes no sense. Those whom believes are right to believe, they don't need people like us to debate about it, it's happening and will continue to happen.
You claim that "Gods" truth (or the quest to understand God(s)) is not a source of understanding the world around around us. Why is that?
Because it is inherently reliant on faith, and faith is not a tool for the discovery of truth.
What evidence can science give to discount a person is happy when they think of God?
Sure, people who believe in God may be happier when they do so. So what? One person's happiness does not equate truth. People who are addicted to drugs are happy when they use. Does that mean their addiction has value? Or that that is the only way to find happiness? Of course not.
There is no right or wrong answer; for the quest to understand and know X, Y, Z god(s), is very personal.
Either one's particular view of God exists or does not. Of course there is a right or wrong answer, and likely far more wrong answers than right.
Who are you to claim that these beliefs are not in fact truths, whether to them or universally?
Someone who thinks our society is better served by being objective and realistic than living in some fantasy world and using faulty reasoning to establish truth.
These truths that I spoke of are and have been demonstrable since the beginning of our species, again, who are you to claim these people are pulling things out of their religious asses?
What truths are you referring to?
You claim that what science does not know AND if a person claims they believe in something because science has not known it yet, it's poor reasoning!?
Out of curiosity, what do you think "science" is?
Those whom believes are right to believe, they don't need people like us to debate about it, it's happening and will continue to happen.
Sure, it is going to continue to happen, but that doesn't mean that they are right to believe it. To jump to an unrealistic conclusion with no objective analyses is mentally handicapping oneself.
Wow, another person on this forum asking me what "science" is...
Man, I almost wish you would look months back and see what I've discussed with certain people.
I digress.
Science is simple.
Science is a quest to understanding the world around us, how it works, possibly why it works, sometimes when it works, ect.
Science uses observational methods, as well as test and trial and error, using technology, our eye balls, and whatever other tools necessary to establish a "truth" or "truths", through analyses and experimentation.
Science is nothing more than the observation of a human beings' mind and eyes and senses in attempt to understand the world around us.
Need more?
Once again, you claim that a theists beliefs are nothing more than subjective bullshit that they're making up to be happy and satisfied and yet holds no actual "truth" to the world around us.
Once again, where is your evidence to support your claim? There is none, it is impossible. Surely science cannot and will never refute or come up with "evidence" to deny the existence of any god or gods.
My evidence for this is that the world is too huge for even the human brain to completely and fully comprehend, and so therefore, there must be truths that are not of the scientific realm; that is, since the universe is so grand and since science has only known a small percentage of what even they claim there is. There is without a doubt something, whatever it is, beyond the understanding of our natural observational skills.
And so further, for any theist to conclude that they believe in X, Y, Z god(s) because they've got a "feeling", or because they've been "blessed", or they've seen a "miracle", or they "prayed and good/bad happened", or they've got their texts, or they've got their "sun or star", or they've experienced something that is "not of this world", I feel is completely normal and natural.
And so, for a person like you (and there are many of you) to claim, "oh these are merely feelings and hold no value and is not truth", that is complete bullshit. Show me how and why theists are wrong and that you personally are right? Or show me that science is the end all to the greatest questions and mysteries of this universe.
Let me ask you something now.
Do you believe science will eventually understand and know all that there is to know in this universe and the next? (I don't)
Do you believe there are millions of species on this very earth that have not been seen nor heard nor observed? (I do)
Do you believe the stars and light that which science is studying is old news anyways and that science is studying the trail of truth? (I do)
Do you believe those that believe are seeking the wrong answer to the questions?
Which questions do you believe are the ones humans should be asking?
Are you upset and discouraged to know that people will continue to seek a force that is not easily observable and tested by the science community?
As far as your definition of science, it is pretty good and better than I would get from some of the other folks on this site. But there is something about modern naturalistic science (which is what we really mean when we are talking about "science" in the 21st century) that is intrinsic to it, but not limited to it: the scientific method.
You basically hinted at the SM when you referred to "observational methods, as well as test and trial and error." The thing is, there are rules to how the tests are to be conducted and how we go about drawing conclusions from them. These rules exist to rule out error and misunderstandings as much as is humanly possible, as well as making it much harder for a scientist to be dishonest in their research. The SM is science. But it can be used for pretty much any kind of inquiry you want. Courts use it, historians do too. Your mechanic can use it to figure out what's wrong with your car...etc...
Now, we know the SM has limits. It has to in order to be useful.
If something cannot be identified using the SM, this does not mean that it does not exist. But it gets virtually impossible to verify with absolute certainty. One of the rules of the SM is refusal to accept the supernatural as an answer. This is partially because modern science is supposed to naturalistic, but even that aspect of science came about by necessity.
If something is truly supernatural, it cannot be isolated, tested or predicted. And virtually every time we've come across a "supernatural" phenomina that CAN be, it inevitably shows itself to be naturalistic.
Is this proof that supernatural things do not exist? No. But we cannot as yet verify they do, and until we can, it is foolish to say much specific about them.
Once again, you claim that a theists beliefs are nothing more than subjective bullshit that they're making up to be happy and satisfied and yet holds no actual "truth" to the world around us.
Once again, where is your evidence to support your claim?
If they cannot substantiate their beliefs, than their claim is suspect. Different methods exist for different claims, but if their is no substance behind a claim, or a naturalistic explanation that is testable, then their reasoning for belief is weak.
Surely science cannot and will never refute or come up with "evidence" to deny the existence of any god or gods.
Nor can it support them. It is possible that if science cannot identify something, that something may not exist. This isn't 100%, of course. But at least the stuff we have been able to idenitfy and test is worthy of belief. And considering some of the crazy things we've turned up (electrons, quantum physics, relativity), science has a very wide reach.
There is without a doubt something, whatever it is, beyond the understanding of our natural observational skills.
Maybe. But without a doubt? That's premature.
And so further, for any theist to conclude that they believe in X, Y, Z god(s) because they've got a "feeling" (notoriously inaccurate), or because they've been "blessed",(having good things happen is hardly supernatural) or they've seen a "miracle",(people use that word far too easily, and rarely with investigation) or they "prayed and good/bad happened", (always ignoring the numerous times when the prayed and nothing happened, or that prayers don't seem to work on some things) or they've got their texts,(spurious texts) or they've got their "sun or star",(I like looking a stars too, but as astonishing as they are, they are not supernatural) or they've experienced something that is "not of this world",(basically the same response I had to "miracles") I feel is completely normal and natural. (It is completely normal and natural for a child to wet their bed. Less so for an adult.)
Do you believe science will eventually understand and know all that there is to know in this universe and the next?
I don't know. It seems unlikely, but I can't predict the future.
Do you believe there are millions of species on this very earth that have not been seen nor heard nor observed? (I do)
I wouldn't be able to guesstimate a number and would be skeptical of anyone who does, but there are very likely life forms we haven't identified yet, almost certainly some being cataloged right now.
Do you believe the stars and light that which science is studying is old news anyways and that science is studying the trail of truth? (I do)
I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly, but I think I agree with you.
Do you believe those that believe are seeking the wrong answer to the questions?
"Those that believe" is a pretty huge category. I would have to deal with them on a one on one basis and look at exactly what the believe, why they believe it, etc.
Which questions do you believe are the ones humans should be asking?
Question that are falsifiable and testable.
Are you upset and discouraged to know that people will continue to seek a force that is not easily observable and tested by the science community?
Not upset. Maybe a little discouraged though. It seems weird to me that in the modern era so many superstitions would persist, and I wonder if these superstitions may be slowing our advancement.
Do you believe science is the end all of truths?
I believe that the scientific method is the best methodology for uncovering truth. It has been proven over and over to me in my own education, so for a different method to gain my trust, such a new method would also have to stand up to my scrutiny.
Those, like myself, whom do believe and appreciate the science community, ought to realize that they are observing the world through various filters. That is, through the human senses and through the bigger "scientific lens", so to speak. And so, when science evaluates and re-evalutes the "knowledge gained" we tend to believe, "Okay, this is truth for now, until we can come up with better conclusions or tangible facts."
Since science is primarily a product upon our human senses and abilities, this must mean that religion, or the religious is all a part of the same human sense and abilities. Not all human senses and abilities are on a quest to further understanding the truth and world around us; that is, not every belief of a human being should be considered as truth. However, I believe religion, and the religious (those that "believe" in that) are seeking their truth through the filters of that, respectably, trying to understand what is not observable, and what is it easily detectable.
So now we've got two different filters and lenses, being used by the same product, human beings.
With all of this said, I feel it's obvious that both the science community and the religious community are on this grand quest and adventure to figure out what the fuck is going on around the world around us and within our own lives and species as well (obviously).
Science may state "If we can test it, measure it, see it, taste it, feel it, hear it, smell it, then most likely it is true; it is right there in front of us."
Religion may state "Since we know there are things we can test, measure, see, taste, feel, fear, smell, then what about the things we can't see, we can't test, we can't measure, ect, ect? And so, we will choose to believe in what science cannot see nor measure to its abilities, thus far."
This simple example shows how much the science community puts into the "verifiable claims" versus the "non-verifiable claims". That is, it seems to me that science says "If we cannot measure it, cannot test it, cannot observe it, then it cannot be labeled truth, yet."
I feel this particular belief is false, even within the scientific mindset; as to say, "Okay science, give me measurable data that what you have not know yet, cannot be true." I do not believe that what science cannot claim to be true, can't be truth; I believe truth can be found without science telling us it is true. My proof and evidence is the vast universe that which science has not discovered and I feel will not discover its entirety. And therefore, leaving the floodgates wide open to alternative methods of understanding the world around us, including the belief in a "higher power" of one shape or form of another.
I can respect your position, and it is actually pretty close to what I used to believe when I was younger. What changed me?
Partially, I was a lot more of a relativist then than I am now. I can agree that there are some things that don't have a right or wrong, and I don't deny that people have different perspectives. But most questions DO have a right or wrong, and a lot of the wiggle-room I used to allow for ended up being illusory when I started learning more about the world.
I've been in and out of school, first studying psychology, then anthropology, then natural resource management (which is a very broad curriculum itself, and includes a lot of science). Independently I have studied several other topics, including bunches more science, and philosophy, history and religion. I say this not to imply that I'm super smart or anything. But I have found that dipping my toes into such a wide range of fields really changed my perception of the world. Before, I didn't really study much of anything except music and comic books. Then when I studied psychology, that was pretty much all I studied.
Once I opened up a lot more, so many general preconceptions I had about life, and about knowledge in general, were proven false or incomplete. Seeing the scientific method applied and working in all the fields of science I looked into made me realize how logical and useful it is (which is why I made a big deal about it last time around). And I found that when scholars applied it as well as they could to other fields, they seemed to get better, more complete data. Also, debating helped me critique a wide range of thought processes and determine which seemed most effective.
(Sorry to ramble on and talk about myself so much...on to a few direct responses.)
However, I believe religion, and the religious (those that "believe" in that) are seeking their truth through the filters of that, respectably, trying to understand what is not observable, and what is it easily detectable.
That is true. But the methodology behind it is inherently limited because the subject matter is so vague. Supernatural things can't even be proved to exist, much less be defined in a sensible, reliable way. While this does not rule out the possibility of their existence, they invariably end up losing objectivity when scrutinized. Human errors such as confirmation bias and limited world view, errors that are heavily mitigated by the scientific method, become virtually unavoidable. We start wandering further away from being able to honestly scrutinize them.
Science may state "If we can test it, measure it, see it, taste it, feel it, hear it, smell it, then most likely it is true; it is right there in front of us."
And those things that are in front of us, they can be understood, manipulated, used, protected, discussed on an equal playing field. The supernatural, I don't believe we can actually use that in any way. I know some people feel they can, but it is so unreliable, so speculative, so seemingly under the control of naturalistic factors. I don't think a person's world is any different when they pray or cast a spell than if they didn't. And if that is true, they are wasting their time. That is their choice of course, but that's time they could be using to do things that can be demonstrated to actually make their lives better, or better yet, make the world better.
That is, it seems to me that science says "If we cannot measure it, cannot test it, cannot observe it, then it cannot be labeled truth, yet."
Yes, that is what it says, and I assert that is the most rational and honest stance, and the one more likely to get good results. Remember, we're not saying it is definitely false (well, some science fans do, but we shouldn't), we are saying this is demonstrable, we can use it to make reliable predictions, and lets see if it we can learn even more from it. That last bit is important. I think relying on faith does little to advance our knowledge.
I am not opposed to keeping an open mind, but I do think a duck should be called a duck. Speculation that cannot be substantiated should not be prematurely passed off as truth.
And some of this stuff is downright dangerous. There are cases of extremists losing their children to fairly treatable conditions by refusing to take them to the hospital and relying on faith alone.
I'm in my mid 20's and I've been to multiple universities on and off now studying anything from sociology to psychology to astronomy to Spanish. However, I do not particularly feel the age is a huge factor on our conversation. I don't necessarily believe that's a point you were trying to make, but I suppose a point I wanted to make was that I too have studied various scientific based subjects, whether partial or not; I've actually learned more through my own studying elsewhere from universities, not unnecessary when I was a studying for schooling.
Moving on..
Since we're on the same page, as far as that is concerned, this conversation makes it a bit easier to communicate points across to one another.
Personally for me, the more that I study science and all its glory, the more I tend to realize that there is so much that science has very little knowledge about. These particular things are as follows: Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Explaining how the ancient humans created, and had knowledge of, particular things that modern science has only come up with relatively recently; that is, batteries, the wheel, clocks, to name a few, Is the universe stretching or is it collapsing, How many universes there are, Can anything travel faster than the speed of light, Various structures made by the ancient humans (perfect spheres, pyramids, Mayan technology, Sumerian technology; using various materials and techniques. These are but a few, though some could be considered the "bulk" of the mysterious surrounding science and the world around us.
The question that comes to mind is "Why can't science thoroughly explain to me in this great modern day age of amazing discoveries and technologies, how and when and why particular structures and beliefs were present back in the ancient times?" That is, if science is ever so awesome, yet can't explain to me what happened thousands of years ago, where does that leave us? With more questions than answers. And since science is based upon asking questions upon questions and hoping to obtain answers to those questions, why is it that more questions are being brought up than answers that science can supply with?
The more that science understands the world around us the more science realizes it knows "jack and shit and jack left town." (reference here) Yet, naturally, science continues to be the mad scientists wanting to understand everything yet realizes it has its boundaries.
And I haven't even spoken about the religious side of mankind yet and already there are limits. So it's obvious that human minds have its limits and its obvious that human beings are longing for a particular truth, whatever that may be.
As I said before, the more my knowledge expands and my mind opens up, the more questions I have that science has not answered yet, leaving me to realize that science is not the end all to anything, though science is in fact amazing in and of itself, that we've come up with medicines and technologies that are mind boggling; I will not take credit away where credit is due.
Which brings me to my next point.
There is also credit to be done elsewhere and that is the realization that since the beginning of time, of our species' time, mankind has spoken of many different gods and goddesses, or the sun god, or whatever, all of it in its entirety, to this modern day and age. I believe this is deems an investigation into why, how, ect, to and deserves it's credit. It is like a huge game of telephone and it's changed since the beginning of our species and some has stayed the same; that is sure the gods may have changed however that people are speaking of this god or that god has not changed. And therefore, I've concluding that something must have been there, and is here now with us; that is, whatever it is, something is there.
Science cannot detect this "something" with physical evidence and therefore deems it "non conclusive, false, invalid, and/or not truth". What is truth is that people have been believing since the beginning of man. That alone should hold physical evidence, however for many it means nothing. It's apparent that people don't believe in people when they say they "believe in a god, or something there beyond this world" yet people tend to believe other people when they say "2+2=4", or "There is gravity", or "The world is round".
The obvious issue here is that many people need physical evidence for themselves to conclude for themselves that whatever it is they're studying, is true, or not.
And this is just one reason why i believe something is there, but I do not know for sure what exactly it is, however I know it is. Then it goes back to "Show me this something that you believe in." And I cannot physically show you, nor anyone else that the god(s) I believe in are true, I cannot grab this something up in the air and show you this thing, or being. This then leaves me at a a stand-off, or a "You're just going to have to believe me." Which again, I do not say that all things that mankind has believed in must be true, I'm speaking precisely a greater aspect of many individuals and cultures believing in X, Y, Z god, not one or two people saying "I have a unicorn in my backyard, believe me". I'm saying it's more like thousands of years of cultures and individuals stating "We believe in X, Y, Z god(s)"; things are greater in numbers, right?
In the end my points are not in any way in attempt to change your beliefs or push you do believe in something you do not believe in.
My number one point with this particular response is really to have you, or others, realize that there are many like myself, whom through the years have realized that humans are not alone, are not on their own.
And if there is one thing to take from this, at least understand that millions upon millions of people have believed for a long time, and it is not a coincidence; it's got purpose and meaning behind it. The question is what is the purpose, what is the meaning for these people to want to want to believe in X, Y, Z god(s).
And lastly, I believe science cannot and will not show me anything that will stray my decision away. In fact, the more that I study science and understand it, the more I believe in the god(s) I believe in, and THAT I think is funny.
I bang my head against the wall when i see these types of debates, and the arguments found within them. Science, especially at this stage, can not prove or disprove God. We don't know what to look for. Relgion is just having faith that there is a God, and atheism is the lack of the faith due to uncertainty. If someone really wants to be at the most logical standpoint of the issue, that would be the agnostic perspective "i don't know, so i will not assume to know".
Please, if you do respond to this debate, stay within the realms of the perspectives being questioned. Not simply "god is no longer needed and nor are the superstitions nor are the FSM." Quite frankly those responses are lame, dull and boring. Thanks.
You know what is lame, dull, and boring to me? Always the same idiotic responses in defense of religion/god. Responses that lack logic and a sense of reality completely. Although I have to admit, with their incredible stupidity they are rather funny, if not funny then just entertaining.
As to this debate, stupid. Very stupid.
If there is just one crazy person the person will be sent to a nuthouse. If there's a lot of crazy persons then a new religion is born, as if there's nothing wrong with a lot of them, but if just one then it is a very big and bad thing. Sounds about right, then you look at our world and you see it really is so. Fucked up, right?
If you saw a person talking about some god of candies and all the sweet things, who visits children in their dreams, takes them to a special land of playfulness and happy time, and then plays with them, and if people die they will turn back to children, go to that land, and stay there to play and be happy forever, as if it was actually true, yet giving no evidence, what would you think of that person? Now, if you would see a person talk about the good old jesass and god saying whoever "believes" it will go to a place of peace and happiness and all the good stuff when they die, yet giving no evidence either, what would you then think of that person? First is crazy and the other is not crazy, right? If so then what does that say about you?
nummi, you're ranting to the wrong person here. You're fucking preaching to the choir. Your opinion is fucking weak.
First of all you're talking shit about extremists here, about corrupt fucktards running some religions. You're clumping together all religions as a whole, using jessas and the christians as your culprit for being "pissed off and annoyed at idiotic responses."
Fuck you for stating my debate is stupid.
You're lame fucking analogies are so weak and dull that you're the fucking one sounding crazy, asshole.
This debate is for not for the generalizing. This debate is specifically questioning the illogical aspects of the "God of The Gaps" ordeal.
This isn't a fucking debate to bash on certain people and their beliefs.