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.
Nonsense. Science does not find evidence. Science does not evaluate data. People do. And there is plenty of empirical data supporting the conclusion that God must be. The correct way to state the idea you're trying to express is to say that science cannot conclusively affirm or falsify God's existence. True. So what? This does not mean that we don't have empirical data pointing to God's existence as interpreted by any reasonable person.
The atheist is wont to say, “Hey, that’s irrational!”
Oh, on what basis? Your opinion? It’s certainly not based on science, for science is merely the discipline of evaluating data and forming theoretical models of prediction about it subject to falsification. One cannot make a scientifically falsifiable assertion, either positive or negative, about non-empirical things. Human reason is not bound by the dictates of science’s limitations. To claim that it is, is in fact non-scientific, indeed, pseudo-scientific blather.
This theist understands the distinctions between science and theology.
Atheists are forever confounding the two. Science is not the beginning, let alone the end, of human experience and reasoning.
To believe in something and act on it- you need to be sure of it's truth, and truth is justified knowledge- to justify knowledge you need evidence. No evidence, the knowledge is not justified... it is not a valid certainty.
Actually your concept of 'God' exists, but I'm not going into that.
For the sake of argument, you wouldn't accept the empirical data I take to be evidence that supports the conclusion that God must be. But I'm not primarily interested in teleological arguments. It's the weight of ontological arguments coupled with what science tells us about the material realm of being that justifies the conclusion that God must be. Beyond that, I know Him to exist from personal experience. I have no interest in proving His existence to others. It can’t be done. Each person has to choose for himself. The justified knowledge of science would necessarily entail empirical data; the justified knowledge of God would necessarily entail direct revelation. There’s also the matter of justified logic. Objectively speaking, we accept the proofs of rational and mathematical axioms and their immediate ramifications all the time as a matter of necessity, as a matter of practicality.
See, this is how I know your posts are full of bullsh*t
"There is plenty of empirical data supporting the conclusion that God must be"
"One can not make a scientifically falsifiable assertion, either positive or negative, about non-empirical things."
So... there is empirical evidence... but the human method for studying and evaluating it isn't allowed to study and evaluate the empirical evidence you claim to have.
Now, i'm no expert, but it seems like you're proclaiming the existence of evidence that you cannot prove exists because it doesn't. Which essentially makes your argument invalid?
And recognizing the distinction between science and theology is something this atheist understands. But i can define the difference without contradicting myself. Can you?
Science is a method for defining the natural world and by extension, the natural universe.
Depending on what you mean by God science has a lot to say. If you mean a Deists God than science cannot say anything because it doesn't interfere with reality, but if you mean a God such as the Yahweh who affects reality can be tested for.
According to your logic a "thing" for which there are no evidence that would make it possible/realistic exists until there is evidence strictly against it's existence.
Physical/empirical evidence isn't the only kind of evidence. But, again, this discussion is starting to fall outside the scope of this debate. We're not talking about what we are or aren't justified in assuming; that would be an epistemological debate. We've got the epistemology for this discussion very strictly defined: that of the scientific method. Under the established epistemic rules of scientism, are we justified in ruling out the "existence" of a God-figure?
Science is the art of observation and recognition of patterns. The only reason "science" provide no evidence for God is because it has not been applied to the concept.
Science does not say "We dont know X, Y, Z, but we want to know X, Y, Z, and so we observe X, Y, Z, and come up with our conclusions and claim it to be true, or not? (It's a question..)
If scientists were too busy learning what is, then the science that is present now, would be non existent, because in order for science to learn and understand, it MUST be too busy learning and understanding what "might be", or what it has not known, yet.
No. Scientists observe and predict based on similar conditions. Learning what is requires a question, then evidence, then analysis and construction of a theory. Philosophy is for the 'what if, what could be' questions.
Scientists observe, predict, and base their conclusions off of what they're capable of understanding and experimenting on.
Science does not know everything, and science will not ever know everything.
Science is "chasing the magic dragon".
That is, the moment the science community achieved its first goal, the "high" they obtained will not be accomplished because the "truth" THEY ARE after will NOT be obtained; science cannot and will not know and understand everything that which it sets out to understand, it's INEVITABLE.
And so, since science and scientists cannot achieve that which it seeks. There are possible solutions to the unknowns.
Science is just upset because it knows it will never achieve the greatest dreams of the most average people, and it wants to.
It is, impossible to understand everything- simply because it's everything, and would take eternity. You really have little understanding of science, most is fairly mundane- in that it is only scientific, and would require a large dose of insanity to see as anything else, so religious explanations are not looked for (hm, a new element... it has a longer half life, that must be in the island of stability- we found it! v. no! god decreed it so!). Philosophy fills in the gap between science and religion- and is largely accepted. Scientists attempt to prove aspects of philosophy when science is advanced enough.
What evidence do you have to proclaim that I have little understanding of science?
Where is it?
Have you attempted to downgrade my understanding of the world around me? Yes. What the fuck is that about?
Not once have I tried offended you, yet you've made it clear to do so with myself in stating I have very little understanding of science.
Once again, another person fucking being ridiculous to another person FOR NO REASON, other than trying to upgrade your potentiality.
You're very similar to that fucktard NUMMI.
Generally giving little facts, mostly handing out degrading perspectives and opinions with little to no evidence of the one you're attempting to downgrade.
I do not have time nor wish the time in all the world to any longer deal with people like you.
Thanks, but no thanks Elvira. You're speaking your lies to the world crowd.
I understand science as much as I understand religion, nothing more, nothing less.
And my understanding of the world around me speaks for itself; and I can't say the same for some of the people I've encountered on here.
You're stating that science will never find the 'truth' we are after. Excuse me? A thousand or more truths not good enough? Cures to diseases, ways to save lives such as earthquakeproof buildings, clean coal technology, kevlar, solar panels, information about star formation, plate techtonics... all these are golden truths that have revolutionised thought in different ways, that science has found. This is my basis of saying you have little understanding- the open minds and inquiring thoughts that are the foundation of science are blocked by religion.
"Reason is the enemy of faith"
I believe in sustainable progress, and from the basis of how the world is now, that follows the path of science.
Science will never understand all that which it seeks; to understand and "know" everything about the universe. What about that did you not understand?
Yes science has proceeded in finding amazing "truths" and I give great credit to some technological aspects of science and what science is all about.
Still, science wants it all and it will never achieve all, of anything. It's a fact, it's evident. Where's the evidence? Look up in the fucking sky and all around you. Looks pretty huge, eh?
I'm thinking outside the box as much as I realize how contained our human minds are.
Science will progress, without a doubt. Don't get me wrong.
It's a matter of the truth being there, it just needs to be found. What is the point in a never-ending journey, you're saying? It's many journeys- many paths- an eternity to explore, the point is- it's fun to find this information as well as necessary. It's the front line in the war against ignorance, when religion is the comfort of your home village. Religions such as Christianity and Islam have not been big supporters of free thought: I'll give that that's mainly due to medieval-minded dictators praeting their religions to their advantage- and not all the fault of the teachings. I fail to see how your argument relates to a god, though.
It's a matter of the truth being there, it just needs to be found.
Exact quotes by you Elvira.
THe main point I'm making is that there must be "agnostically" multiple quests for humans figuring out these "truths" you and I speak of. "Agnostically" meaning, since really no man or woman can state for certainty that what they know and believe is 100 percent ultimate truth, this makes room for many quests and reasoning and ways for a human to "find out that truth" that which they seek.
In other words, we're all in the same boat, under the same sun, within the same universe. And so, when one man says "I don't believe in God because no one knows for sure, so I can't say this way or that", or when a woman says "I don't believe in God because there are other "more reasonable" ways to figure out truth", or another person says "I do believe in God because the universe is so grand there must be something." Are not all of these people trying to figure out the "truth being there", and they "just need to be found". It goes all sorts of ways.
My ultimate point is not that religion exists or the religious, or the non religious exists, that's obvious, but, that all humans strive for the same "truth", in one shape of form or another.
Which truth is "correct" or "right" is really one of the primary situations that people tend to debate about this or that.
Are there many "truths" out there? Yes
Is there one "truth" that is "correct" and all of the others are wrong? I do not know.
In the end, I hope that soon peoples from all different beliefs can calmly and efficiently come together to figure out what the fuck is going on.
And this is one of the reasons why I am an advocate to merging the science community with the religious community, in one shape or form or another.
Aye, but there are many religions- many. Merging science and religion is philosophy, and when science proves something in a reigion, such as meditation being benificial to emotional state, etcetera. A religion can say 'we think this' but discovering evidence and explaining how this evidence prooves it is science- so they do mix. I don't like how the Judeo-Islam-Christian religions have one all powerul god, I have to admit, and from the bible (1st commndment esp.), there seems to be evidence for multiple deities. There is so much specculation to the origion or lack of origin of the universe, that quantum physics is the best way to go. You talk about philosophy, which is fine- but the debate is about science. Say I achieve my dream and become a volcanologist and state "Goddess Pele makes volcanoes erupt." That idea cannot be disproved or proved- but it will be refuted, which is why I would not say that without proof. It is the same as Christianity- no proof, no disproof of your god.
You like many others tend to automatically go straight to Christianity, and so because thats the dominate religion here in the United States. However, like you say "aye, there are many religions". Of course there are many religions, as there are many gods that people tend to believe in.
I don't only talk about science as science and religion as a science, I talk about the philosophies of both together and on their own; that is they are both a science and both a philosophy; Science is a tool to understanding the world around us, Religion is a tool to understanding the world around us. Whats your point in pointing that out to me?
Moving on...
What's funny about your argument "Goddess Pele makes volcanoes erupt".....Science says "Magma is less dense than rock so it tends to float to the surface". And for shits and giggles I'll say "How does science know Goddess Pele didn't create magma to be less dense than rock so that it will float to the surface."
I digress, just wanted to have a little fun with that.
Quantum physic - Do you believe science knows all that it can know about it? Do you believe science will understand all that it can understand? Do you believe quantum physics is 100 percent realized by us humans?
I do not say that science does not deserve credit where credit is due.
I do however say that there should be credit deserved to aspects of life other than science; that is, science is not the end all to truth. My proof? The world around us; the universe.
The more science understands the world around it, the more it realizes it doesn't know.
The more science gains knowledge, the more knowledge is stagnant and almost lost.
And these are not my thoughts, these are facts of scientists from their words, from around the world.
Personally for me, the more that I study and understand science through the science glass, the more I believe in the god(s) I believe in; the more knowledge gained from science, the more knowledge and desire I gain to further my quest in studying and wanting to know that god(s) I believe in; that "something up there"
Why don't you like the fact that some theists claim there is only one god? Do you not have a problem with theists that believe in many god(s)? Would you feel more comfortable knowing that people believe in many god(s) yet you still admit you are atheist/agnostic, or variations of both?
No, the more science gains knowledge, the more it gains questions.
I don't worship any gods, but I entertain the idea, to the extent of a belief I still question, of them being there, as some sort of higher beings- but I really really don't like the idea of an all powerful all knowing god. That's... just freaky.
Yes, that is precisely my point and basically what I hit on.
The more science gains knowledge, the more it gains more questions than answers, and therefore, the more science gains knowledge and questions the more stagnant it becomes.
Science is chasing the magic dragon.
And science is gaining knowledge from the tail of truth; a good example is how when we look at the stars, they could in fact not be there in reality, but to us they're still shinning bright. And so science does indeed chase what's already been there, they're always one step behind.
What is the point in a journey that is finite? If we knew everything it would be quite boring. It's like a world so big that it's impossible to explore it all.
There's nothing wrong with it, it's just the idea of a single all powerful god is slightly annoying. And worshipping deities is fine, just not extremely intelligent for reasons I can't really talk about.
Science has the lofty, unreachable goal of knowing everything because science would not progress without that idea. Imagine, if science's quest for truth stopped at the boiling temperature if water.
Not having that goal would sabotage the very essence of science's mission and by not knowing that, you provide proof of your inadequate scientific knowledge.
Where you see a definite "never" scientists see as a definite "mystery waiting to be solved"
Hm, are you speaking to me TimelordROOK? Are you yet ANOTHER person this site to test my knowledge of science?
If so, shame on you. Once again, do not claim things you do not know or have very little information on. If you WERE responding to my "science will never know everything it seeks" ordeal, did you not read between the lines?
I've got plenty scientific knowledge, its mission how it works, and where it wants to go.
Where I see a definite never, so too do scientists, ask around and research. Where I see never scientists do claim to seek the "mysteries of life", so long as science and the human being is around.
However, and here's the KICK/punchline.
Have you ever thought that perhaps as scientists understand, that they will never reach its goal AND do in fact lie to themselves stating "well, we know we'll never reach everything we set out as goals, but we will not stop so long as human beings are around, and so it's possible one day we could understand everything"
So my question to you is: What was your point with your response? (to whomever you directed that at)
I'm not going to argue with that. They are too busy. God's prophets, (rarely) predict the future, but if you have God's understanding of things, everything is predictable. We lack the ability to see, but tomorrow is basically already created, because of what happened today. If you can understand the nature of things well enough, and was aware of enough data, you could know exactly was going to happen tomorrow. But you are right, scientist are trying to understand what is, rather then what will be.
.
Actually, that isn't true. Scientists are trying what will be to, but many don't try.
Are you talking about one of newton's laws which states that if you knew the position and velocity of every particle in the universe, you would be able to accurately predict the future?
for example Christianity the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
Does this sounds reasonable? based of facts? Or it looks more like Harry Potter?
While i understand that might be how you see Christianity, that is not how i, as a catholic, see my belief. What you see as being a zombie, i understand as being unbound by earthy limitations. What you describe as being one's own father, i see as a metaphysical mystery that might allude to a high level of self-awareness or a concurrent existence of the same mind through two perspectives.
I could go on, but i am not trying to preach here. I just am pointing out that while you have the right to make up you own mind of the matter of religion and such, it is wrong to quickly dismiss those who do as being unreasonable by twisting their beliefs in such a manner as you did.
This would be my response. Your [Banana_Slug's] description of (the Christian, which wasn't the god specified by the resolution) god is based on a fundamentalist, literalist interpretation of the Bible which is not shared by the majority of theists or deists.
LOL. You must be joking...the MAJORITY of your average believer is a literalist. 90% of every christian ive seen actually believes in most if not all of these things.
If you dont, then being a christian is just a lable.
As in, if you dont believe in genesis, then why believe in god? It makes him pointless. And if you dont believe in jesus, then youre not really a christian.
Telepathically accepting christ as your master and asking for things is prayer in a nutshell, which, if you dont believe in, makes the faith pointless once again.
I hear tons and tons of crap from everyone about "being saved" or "born again". If you dont literally believe in heaven and all of that stuff then youre not really a christian.
If you dont literally believe in this stuff: YOU ARE NOT A BELIEVER. Christian is just label for you. Its meaningless. 90% of christians i see are literalists to a large extent because many of them lack the ability to think critically enough to organize their faith logically let alone throw it away all together.
90% of every christian ive seen actually believes in most if not all of these things.
Anecdotal evidence is almost less reliable than no evidence. Never assume the universality of your experience. 90% of theists in America aren't even Christian.
If you dont, then being a christian is just a lable.
No true Scotsman. "You can't be (thing) unless you meet this arbitrary standard I set for no reason!" There are tens of thousands of different denominations of Christianity, over two thousand in the US alone. Are you really that confident you've met an adequate representation of those sects, that those you've met have been sufficiently acquainted with the foundations of their beliefs, and that you've been able to grasp the nuance necessary to make the claims you're making? I wouldn't even go so far to say that about myself, and I clearly know more about this than you do.
As in, if you dont believe in genesis, then why believe in god? It makes him pointless.
Your understanding of theology is seriously deficient if you really believe this. Do you just not know what symbolism is?
And if you dont believe in jesus, then youre not really a christian.
I never said anything about Jesus. I'm referring to the Pentateuch.
asking for things is prayer in a nutshell
Intercessory prayer is for born-agains. Seriously, if you don't recognize that not all Christians operate on the same assumptions about scripture that you do, I can't imagine how you can even begin to consider yourself qualified to opine of the validity of the faith.
because many of them lack the ability to think critically enough to organize their faith logically let alone throw it away all together.
I assume you're a teenager. I was the same way when I was 14 - 16. I know you won't understand this for a few years, but believe me when I say your confidence in your beliefs is as unwarranted and irrational as you believe that of the most zealous evangelist to be.
You haven't specified how science has refuted god; you've just phrased a common, extremist view of Christianity (which isn't the only ideology that posits a god figure) in a diminutive way. What's your point, and how does it relate to this debate?
You've already said this. Twice. How are the things you're listing comparable to religion and what makes them all demonstrably false? You have to give me something to work with. Being unworthy of or impervious to scientific investigation is different from being refuted by it.
The point is that the idea of god comes from ignorance, failed try of explaining things like, flash, thunder, rainbow, wind, diseases. All religions are based on bronze age myth, idiotic stories full of magic talking animals and so.
This is more less on what are religions based on, ignorance, lie and stupidity.
There is no scientific evidence for god or gods there is nothing to investigate.
I do LDS, not LSD. However, I have been tempted to try LSD. But it's too unpredictable. The guy who developed it used as a means of self-discovery. I've been tempted. . . . . but no.
The current scientific theories we have leave no room for God. From there, Occam's Razor takes precedence. It's as close to a refutation that a philosophy can carry out.
False. That's pseudo-scientific blather. Science has nothing to say about God whatsoever. Science entails the evaluation of empirical data. Period. If you're not talking about empirical data, you're not talking about science. And speaking of Occam's Razor, given the inescapable fact of the material realm's nature of infinite regression, God, in terms of origin, not materiality, satisfies Occam's Razor more readily.
You've missed my point entirely. Before I even begin, I am referring to personal Gods here, those which interact with the material world, like the god of the bible. Deistic gods (though they still fall to the razor) are not what I'm disputing.
Science never has, and never will actively dispute the existence of God. However, by sheer virtue of being so successful, the scientific method passively refutes the existence of God. Whilst God himself is not empirical, the things religious folk attach to him are empirically testable, and the only reason science gets so much shit is because these tests show that most religious lore is Grade A bullshit.
The great flood? Geology disproves that.
Young Earth? Isometric dating disproves that.
Every single creature on Earth living on one boat without dying? 1st grade biology disproves that.
It is not that God himself is empirically testable, but the feats attached to him are, thus meaning that science passively refutes the existence of God. Not actively.
And speaking of Occam's Razor, given the inescapable fact of the material realm's nature of infinite regression, God, in terms of origin, not materiality, satisfies Occam's Razor more readily.
How have you come to the conclusion that the material realm has an infinitely regressive nature? Because you should know that science most definitely states that currently our universe is very finite in its nature.
You also don't seem to be very up to date on modern physics. God is no longer needed to explain the origin of our universe. I implore you to read A universe from nothing by Lawrence Krauss, a physicist who explains the origin of our universe from more humble beginnings than an omnipotent, omniscient, invisible, flying space daddy.
I'm somewhat familiar with that, are you sure this is meant to dispute? Heat death shows a finite universe, one where all energy is used and "nothingness" is left.
are you sure this is meant to dispute? You posted your comment on the "true" side; so, yes. I meant to dispute, even if I agreed with everything you said.
I missed the point entirely? Atheists sure do alleged a lot of missed points around here.
Personal or impersonal deities do not succumb to Occam’s Razor. Your statement it meaningless. That’s my point, and then you go on to talk about a specific personal God. . . .
You write: “The great flood? Geology disproves that.”
False. Geological and archeological discoveries of the Twentieth Century clearly show that a great flood affecting the entire region of ancient Mesopotamian did in fact occur. Your conflating the superimposition of the pre-scientific hermeneutics applied to biblical history in the past, which mistakenly assumed a literal, world-wide global flood, with biblical history in and of itself. The ancients of the Bible thought the world was flat. They had no conceptualization of a global food in the first place.
You write: “Young Earth? Isometric dating disproves that.”
Young earth?! LOL! Only unlearned, though sincere, fundamentalists still hold to a young-earth hermeneutics, along with unlearned atheists, apparently, who think to disprove “A” based on the pre-scientific hermeneutics of “B”. We know today from archeological discoveries, for example, what biblical scholars had suspected for centuries: the young-earth scenario predicated on the presupposition of a continuous chronology of events and a continuous record of ancestral lineages, expressed in patriarchal terms, is all wrong. The ancients themselves had no such thing in mind. The Bible doesn‘t tell us anything about the age of the earth, let alone about the age of the cosmos. Beyond the issue of creation ex nihilo, the ancients weren’t concerned about these things at all. In fact, we know today that the biblical narrative of creation and its general chronology of speciation in Genesis begins at an unknown time well after the beginning of the cosmos and the formulation of the solar system as we know it today.
You write: “Every single creature on Earth living on one boat without dying? 1st grade biology disproves that.”
Again, it wasn’t a global flood. The inhabitants of the Ark would have been selected from the immediate region only, and it’s already been scientifically demonstrated that the actual scenario as described by the Bible is well within the range of possibility. First grade biology? LOL! Sir, your scholarship, such as it is, is moot. Your argument is not with the Bible, but with a pre-scientific/pre-modern system of textual analytics that was discarded nearly 200 years ago. Where have you been? Even Dawkins, for example, utters this same stupidity, exposing, not any real problems with the biblical narrative, but the laugh-out-loud ignorance of his academics.
You write: “It is not that God himself is empirically testable . . .”
Right.
“. . . but the feats attached to him are . . .
Indeed, some are. And the ones that you attached to him are all wrong, aren’t they?
. . . thus meaning that science passively refutes the existence of God. Not actively.
That’s right. And the actual facts of hermeneutics and science, as opposed to the irrelevancies of your ignorance, support the biblical narrative, don’t they?
Personal or impersonal deities do not succumb to Occam’s Razor. Your statement it meaningless. That’s my point, and then you go on to talk about a specific personal God. . . .
Then immediately we are at an impasse, one which renders both our arguments pointless. My argument was centred around a personal deity, not impersonal.
I don't feel the need to argue Biblical literature, you seem to have become far too distracted by my arbitrary examples to focus on my key points (indeed I emphasised them through the use of italics). As it goes it appears your love of the word "hermeneutics" is rather overshadowing your argument.
Are you going to rebut that science passively refutes God through obsoletion, or will you continue with ad homs and straw men of parts of my argument irrelevant to the point? I will outline my point clearly once again:
Science does not, and cannot, actively refute the existence of a deity, due to the unfalsifiable and untestable nature of such an agent. However, as science works on its own, its theories about the universe and how it works obsolete the concept of God, leading to a passive refutation of God.
Oh, I forgot. I’m discussing the matter with an atheist, which means that just as soon as he is refuted on one point, he’ll pretend that the point on which he was refuted is irrelevant, though it was he who raised it. You were talking about a personal deity and something or another about Occam’s Razor and a passive refutation, all of which is nonsensical to begin with, giving specific examples as to why your argument, whatever it is, is true. I’ve shown that your examples are fallacious, based on an erroneous, obsolete model of textural analysis.
Now you’re asking me if I’m gong to address you’re actual argument, which is the same argument sans the examples of an erroneous, obsolete model of textural analysis.
You write: “[1]Science does not, and cannot, actively refute the existence of a deity, due to the unfalsifiable and untestable nature of such an agent. [2] However, as science works on its own, its theories about the universe and how it works obsolete the concept of God, leading to a passive refutation of God.”
If the first part of your argument is true, the second part of your argument cannot be true, whatever that might be. You’re making a bald declaration, not an argument. What “theories about the universe”? What “obsolete concept of God”? What “passive refutation”? I know the science very well. I’m not aware of any theories about the universe that could possibly make God obsolete or constitute a refutation of God’s existence in any way, shape or form. I have no idea what you’re talking about, and you don’t tell us.
If sir may unrustle his jimmies for one moment, then perhaps we could have some civilised discourse instead of this poop slinging match we appear to be having? Otherwise I shan't be pursuing this conversation for much longer (I shouldn't even be writing this now, don't really have time, but hey).
The examples were arbitrary, but hey, if that constitutes a victory for you, congratulations, feel free to strike that as a win. Honestly the Biblical stories could have been replaced with anything, they were just the first things that sprang to mind.
What “theories about the universe”?
M-Theory.
“What obsolete concept of God”
The one that creates and interacts with the universe.
What passive refutation
A subsequent refutation as opposed to a consequent refutation. Science indirectly refutes God through its work, though it never directly says anything about it.
I know the science very well.
Then, if I may be so bold as to ask, have you not brought up the crowning jewel of modern physics, the theory of M?
If you could take some time out from being so hotheaded, it may help you if you use asterisks to highlight chunks of text you are disputing. Something like:
AsteriskAsteriskquote hereAsteriskAsterisk would make it appear bold.
Well, this is fascinating! So M-Theory does all that, eh? Hmm. Well, I got to tell ya, I know M-Theory, and I'm not seeing it. Perhaps you could enlighten us about how the unfalsifiable and prediction-lite musings of M-Theory overthrow the irreducible primary of ontology, i.e, the inanimateness-consciousness dichotomy, and the divine axiom of being per the problem of origin which is not subject to the challenge of infinite regression.
It is funny and irrelevant, I don't care who you are.
.
Actually, the razor cuts the other way in this case.
Science is incomplete and overly complicated.
.
The God is Simple.
God = Living Truth.
.
That is all your need. Truth rules the universe. Nothing exists that is not true. For if it is not true, it cannot happen. Truth is formless and invisible, but creates consciousness. That consciousness sets the intentions of creation, yet all creation follows truth. In spite of the desire, the creation and manifestation of must follow truth. Creation is a mixture of desire and truth.
If god is so simple, why do theologians need collegiate courses dedicated to its study?
Science is incomplete and overly complicated. That should read science is an ongoing and vast effort to understand our surroundings. "Overly complicated" for whom; god? Yourself? Toads? What is "overly complicated?" Is it a god who is willing to prevent evil, but not able? Is he able, but not willing? I don't know, man, this is getting overly complicated
If god is so simple, why do theologians need collegiate courses dedicated to its study?
Maybe because they are idiots? Honestly, I don't know. There is a lot of history and a lot of theories, but I never really hear about any of them. God is eternal and infinite, so there is no lack of things to learn, but the basic understanding is pretty simple.
.
Theologians largely over complicate it too. Finding the Spirit of God, which is omni-consciousness, will automatically teach us what we need and want to know about science and that like. Not to say that I disapprove of science. I love science and I love what science gives us. And God, works on truth, which science in its purest form.
.
Science tends to over complicate things when they don't need to be. For example: A child can pick up and ball and throw it, and yet to break down all of the scientific equations and "facts" of the event would take a man a lifetime. Not to say it's a waste of time, but the child just picked up the ball and threw it. What else do we really need to know about it?
.
The Spirit can inspire understanding without the 10,000 hours in the labs. It is my humble opinion that the types like Tesla, Edison, Ford, and Einstein worked from a position an "inspiration" rather then a deep understanding of science given by means of institutions. True for "others" to find out what they did took a "lot" of education. The great men understood science, but most of their genus was inspired from the consciousness within. The Kingdom of God is within.
.
Is it a god who is willing to prevent evil, but not able?
.
Evil is a necessary evil.
.
Because only truth can happen, there is only one way to create free agency. Think about it. Can anything that does not follows of science (true science, not science limited to study) happen? Really, can 1+1 ever equal 3? Truth happens. There is no other way.
.
It is as simple as, "There is only Truth, everything else is illusion."
.
However, as the sages have said, "Life is an illusion." Only consciousness can have an illusion. So creation is a mixture of truth and illusion.
.
God is the Living Truth, but truth its self cannot have form. Just like 1+1 isn't actually physical. It can be applied to physical things, but the truth its self is invisible. Same with God.
.
Science is a little bit militate. It pain stakingly records every action or such, while inspiration sort of just tries stuff till it works.
.
I'm not saying that science is bad, just that it doesn't refute.
Y'know, as much as I love riddles, can your rebuttal be written in regular prose please?
Science is incomplete and overly complicated.
Nonsense.
The God is Simple.
God = Living Truth.
While I prefer this concept of God to the typical one, I'm fairly confident it's not the one up for debate.
That is all your need. Truth rules the universe. Nothing exists that is not true. For if it is not true, it cannot happen. Truth is formless and invisible, but creates consciousness. That consciousness sets the intentions of creation, yet all creation follows truth. In spite of the desire, the creation and manifestation of must follow truth. Creation is a mixture of desire and truth.
This means absolutely nothing.
Truth creates nothing. Truth is a property we give to an existing object or agent, not something that causes objects and agents to exist. Your house has the property of "truth" (I'd much rather call it existence), but it wasn't created by "truth" (created by existence, as I'm sure you'll see, is a worthless statement).
You then go on to talk about the consciousness of truth, which I assume means God to you. In which case you must prove it my friend.
The razor just cut you my friend.
Let's review:
Science: Has fully working models of most of the universe that do not require intervention from any God, deity, or other being.
You: There's a living breathing consciousness out there that created everything completely contrary to all the empirical studies of the past 500 years.
Fair warning: this is such an obnoxious, unctuous and unproductive comment that I will probably ban you from this debate unless you make some substantive arguments or responses. I don't like to ban people but holy shit, how much of an asshole do you have to be?
Also, while I don't ask that you not insult people even if it is in ways predictable and unimaginative as that, please refrain from using the "support" or "dispute" tags to make non-arguments as it artificially inflates the vote count. tia
Please donate to Bans for Bitches. For just six cents a day, you can give Assface a set of balls. Please help, before he embarrasses himself further...
lol, what kind of 'tard would you have to be to care enough about what a mass of edgy teen atheists on CreateDebate thinks of you to be embarrassed? Like, what kind of medical defect would that require?
i do not try to disrespect anyones religion but science does refute god there is no solid proof. but that means crap i dont know if their is a god or not but science does refyte it
Of course they are getting smaller and smaller. What did you think, that the foundation of the universe was some old man sitting on a throne? God is physically nothing, spiritually everything. God is the LIVING TRUTH that makes things work. The point trying to be made here is that TRUTH IS CONSCIOUS and that it HAS A PLAN.
It's kind of discouraging that your ignorance is so encompassing and that you are so unashamed of it. On a personal note, what makes you think you are qualified to have this discussion? A lot of it seems over your head.
Neil Degrasse Tyson regarding a seventeenth-century scientist's invocation of the Almighty to explain phenomena: Today secular philosophers call that kind of divine invocation God of the gaps—which comes in handy, because there has never been a shortage of gaps in people's knowledge.
And today's atheists make themselves the gods of the gaps in science, imagining all sorts of things that have absolutely nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God whatsoever. The more we learn, in fact, is the more we know about how God did things.
Holes? What part of science don't you understand? What part of science suggest that it makes up stuff or doesn't use things from its surroundings to figure out how the universe works? Science is all about finding evidence, analyzing it carefully, and come to a carefully deduced conclusion based on the evidence found/presented. once so much evidence is presented then that's when things can be confirmed as fact. If there is a hole in a scientific theory that has based itself from evidence found that goes towards the theory, that doesn't mean that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that theory. That just means that the theory may either have to re-evaluate itself or more evidence must be found, or something hasn't quite been deduced yet from the evidence provided. But holes in scientific theories are extremely rare, because rigorous thinking and deductive reasoning and logic goes into the theories, and the evidence that bases the theory comes from natural, and physical evidence. Take the theory of evolution for example, there has been a monumental amount of evidence that suggest changes in the patterns of a species bones over time. Proven techniques such as carbon dating and DNA testing have been used as well to harness evidence. If its been confirmed that there truly is a pattern, then you cant ignore that pattern, that would automatically confirm that it is at least mostly true, and not knowing exactly how the bone and DNA changes work over time from generation to generation doesn't mean that the entire theory is flawed and untrue. That just means that you have to figure out how the process works, what causes this pattern to occur over time in the many species that have existed on earth, because the pattern and changes over time in species is absolutely confirmed. even then science is really close to hitting the last nail to make the full theory of evolution as undeniable fact, as they have rigorously studied DNA and how it changes from generation to generation. so i ask, if you believe that there is a hole in the theory of evolution, what hole could there possibly be in something rigorously studied with careful deduction?
If science cannot come up with solid evidence its hardly refuted Gods existence that's as good as a religious person saying the bible says God exists that's proof he's real
The idea of God imposes itself on our minds without the latter willing that it do so. The idea objectively exists in and of itself. It is not a derivative of human culture, but an axiomatic cognition. And the atheists acknowledges the truth of this every time he opens his yap to deny there be any substance behind the idea. The possibility cannot be rationally denied. The flat-out denial of God’s existence is nothing more than the irrational fanaticism of sheer faith, not reason, predicated on nothing more substantial than an unjustified presupposition of a metaphysical naturalism.
Science has not disproved the existence of God as it is impossible to prove Gods existence, although it has disproved some things from Religous texts all this has done has proved that these texts are incorrect but does not prove or disprove the existence of a Deity, thats something we wont know about until we die
Please point out where in my post I suggested you should? Read it again I said it was impossible to prove or disprove Gods existence, I didnt suggest anyone should try
Because it is a claim. Energy is often invested in disproving something. Many atheists think they are just being kind by not "proving" God doesn't exist. But they cannot. Many brilliant scientists retreat to a quiet place to ponder the missing pieces. And then they speak and say "there is no base to the universe least it just be truth. And then you get that creepy feeling like you are being watched and look over at the Book that claims to be inspired by the Living Truth and you wonder . . . . . .
If an Atheist doesn't have to disprove the existence of a Deity why should a Religous person prove the existence of one all I said was it is impossible to prove either way.
Religious freaks comes with idea that we are toys of some sort of sadistic wizard and we have to repeat retarded prayers forever and ever otherwise we spend billions of years cooked in hob.
You can demand all you want, stamp your feet if it makes you feel better but you wont be getting any evidence of something that is impossible to prove or disprove
This is off-topic. The resolution is "Science refutes god," not "Science can refute god" or "It is the responsibility of science to refute God." You can start one of those debates if you want and invite people here to participate, but that's not what I'm interested in and it won't get us anywhere in this debate.
TheAshman writes: "Science has not disproved the existence of God as it is impossible to prove Gods existence, although it has disproved some things from Religous texts all this has done has proved that these texts are incorrect but does not prove or disprove the existence of a Deity, thats something we wont know about until we die."
I have a few problems with this statement in an of itself. First, science simply cannot affirm or falsify anything that is not empirical in nature. Science's purview is simply limited to the empirical. Period. Second, science certainly hasn't falsified anything asserted by the Bible. Third, the idea that one cannot know that God exists right now is false. One need not prove to another that God exists in order to know for oneself that He does in fact exist.
You say science hasnt disproved anything from the Bible what about Creationism and Evolution? The title of the debate is does Science Refute God, all i've done is point out that it is not possible for Science to refute God regardless of anyones reasons for believing or not believing.
Wrong. Evolutionary theory presupposes a metaphysical naturalism, which is unfalsifiable. If the presupposition is wrong, evolutionary theory could very well be wrong too. If God created the various species we see today, sans those that have since gone extinct, via a series of successive creative events over a period of time as the Bible proposes the evidence would look the same, particularly given the lack of supposed transitory forms. The fact of the matter: evolutionary theory proposes a natural history of an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation predicated on the assumption of a common ancestry, coupled with the assertion that what survives survives. The Bible presents a natural history of a successive chain of creative-events speciation predicated on a mechanistic naturalism, coupled with the assertion that what survives survives. The fossil record would look the same. crickets chirping Scientific evidence/data does not interpret itself. People interpret scientific evidence/data based on one presupposition or another. If the metaphysics of the evolutionist’s science is wrong, the entire edifice of his theory could very well be nothing but an illusion of his own making.
What's interesting about the age of the earth is that perhaps in reality the universe is actually what a couple billion years old and in fact according to science the earth is a couple million years old, AND let's assume for a second that according to X, Y, Z god(s), the earth was created some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, ITS TIME.
Perhaps both the bible (peoples version of the dates) AND the scientists (scientists bias towards their facts and not the bibles) are skewed.
Meaning, perhaps the creation of earth established by X, Y, Z god(s) was based upon a different time and space than the human cognitive physical side of the realm of everything.
I thought that was kinda interesting.
It's always Christian: "The earth is 6,000 years old the bible told me so." Other: "No its not, you are wrong, the earth is obviously millions of years old, you are wrong and the bible is wrong."
It's quite amusing now that I think about it, multiple sides arguing about fucking numbers. I actually thoroughly enjoyed math in schooling, however the more I understood the numbers the more I realized it's not the number itself, it's precisely the value of the number which is more important out of the two.
GOD IS REAL HOW DARE YOU SAY HE ISNT I AM AFFENSIVE BECAUSE HE IS AN AMAZING PERSON HE IS THE ONE WHO MADE THE WORLD. IF HE DIDNT MAKE THE WORLD WHO DID EXACTLY STFU AND READ THE BIBLE AND YOU WILL LEARN SUMTHING.
GOD IS REAL HOW DARE YOU SAY HE ISNT I AM AFFENSIVE BECAUSE HE IS AN AMAZING PERSON HE IS THE ONE WHO MADE THE WORLD. IF HE DIDNT MAKE THE WORLD WHO DID EXACTLY STFU AND READ THE BIBLE AND YOU WILL LEARN SUMTHING.
*Isn't, offended, didn't, something. Once again with the all caps, wonderful to see.
GOD IS REAL HOW DARE YOU SAY HE ISNT
Maybe because there is no real proof for the existence of God.
I AM AFFENSIVE
...
HE IS AN AMAZING PERSON HE IS THE ONE WHO MADE THE WORLD
Apart from the Bible, give me one reason why this is true. I'd like to hear it.
IF HE DIDNT MAKE THE WORLD WHO DID EXACTLY
The Big Bang is a commonly-cited alternative for the God story, more logical too. A combination of several factors is the reason why the world was created the way it was, simple as that. Over a long process, it slowly formed the way it was through various ways.
STFU AND READ THE BIBLE AND YOU WILL LEARN SUMTHING
The Bible cannot be used as a source as there is no proof to back it up. It is merely a story giving an example of how we might have been created, however since it is outdated and can be proven wrong, we don't need to use it.
Oh please, do enlighten. How can evidence of something essentially undefinable exist? I can see that there may be evidence that God could be, but there simply can not be evidence that got must be. That would exclude the existing notion that God may not be.
Because, if there were irrefutable evidence that god must be, there would be a significantly smaller community of atheists.
and as i understand, the community is growing by the day.
Look, atheism is just another load of unexamined, irrational, pseudo-scientific crap in a long line of crap dished out by human crap since crap was crapped out by human crap. Anyone with an IQ above that of a small rash understands that. The new atheism is just a bunch brainwashed yahoos sitting around congratulating themselves on how enlightened they are about crap that no one of any real intelligence gives a crap about.
You completely failed to answer timelordROCK's question, and mine. You claim the evidence is out there, but when asked politely for it, you hide behind insults.
You have no leg to stand on, and when called out on it, you shrivel into this arrogant, mean-spirited, blowhard troll. You really think God would approve of your behavior?
Besides. Science proves things exist via evidence that supports it. It can't prove that things don't exist because you can't produce evidence of something that isn't there.
Burden of proof lay on the accuser
which means for Religion and Science to get along fully, religious people are going to have to prove beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that God exists.
Since God cannot be proven or disproven, God cannot be refuted by science.
YOu can refute evidence, but you can not refute a lack of it. there is nothing to refute.
very weak argument. Really? Because most accredited scientists will agree that we don't have any evidence. Carl Sagan famously refused to "think with his gut." Richard Dawkins claim a "6" (de facto atheist) on his own scale. We simply don't have any evidence either way.
Nonsense, once again, we have plenty of evidence supporting the conclusion that God must be, and the limitations of science are not relevant. You're defining "evidence" as "empirical data," obviously, and then declaring you own subjective assessment of it to be the last word on the matter. When I look at the "evidence" I see something dramatically different. But more to the point, when I look at the rational evidence, I see some very strong arguments supporting the conclusion that God must be.
No one’s defining terms here. There are both rational and empirical considerations or “evidence.”
But more to the point, when I look at the rational evidence, I see some very strong arguments supporting the conclusion that God must be. What evidence are you basing your conclusion off of?
Sagan and Dawkins are fools. One's gut has nothing to do with it. There are perfectly rational reasons to conclude from empirical data, the fundamental apprehensions of being and the axioms of mathematics that God must be. Reason. Logic. In fact, the only thing they're thinking with is their senses if we're going to talk physiologically here.
Right. The end of human experience and reason are the limitations of sensory perception. That‘s the ticket.
That's all they're really saying.
We just ignore the rational aspects of the human condition and human apprehension because of the limits of sensory perception? Yeah. That's rational. Not. Behold the reason why radical empiricism premised on a metaphysical naturalism, which, by the way, is not scientifically falsifiable, inevitably succumbs to relativism, i.e., irrationalism.
But then of course, atheists are notoriously bad thinkers, bad philosophers, who would inevitably turn science into scientism.
Hawking et al., for example, would have us believe by way of a little game of semantic charades that the gravitational force of the spatial mass in the vacuum of quantum physics is a metaphysical/existential nothingness. Right. Let’s call that which is a metaphysical/existential something of causality a nothing simply because it is devoid of matter. Viola! Something can arise from nothing.
Semantics. Philosophical blather irrationally disregarding the actuality of things. Oh, look, folks, we just dispense with the ontological necessities of being and causality because Hawking, this supposed genius, says the material mass-energy of space is nothing.
Of course Hawking et al. know they’re not talking about an ontological/existential nothingness and know bloody damn well that the QV does not resolve the matter of infinite regression. Publicity. Scientific sensationalism. But atheistic laymen being the gullible dupes that they are go, “Yup!” LOL!
Sagan and Dawkins are fools. One's gut has nothing to do with it. Precisely why Sagan said he didn't think with his gut.
There are perfectly rational reasons to conclude from empirical data, the fundamental apprehensions of being and the axioms of mathematics that God must be. Such as?
The rest of your argument rests on the erroneous notion that scientists believe " The end of human experience and reason are the limitations of sensory perception" and that is simply untrue. If that were the case, we could have never split the atom, figured out how breathing works, or detected the cosmic background radiation that fills our universe.
The facts do not support or disprove the possible existence of a deity. However, drawing from what we know about the workings of the universe, an all-powerful creator seems to be highly improbable.
LOL! No. He's thinking with his SENSES about a transcendent thing! He's confounding the limitations of sensory perception and the limitations of scientific inquiry with sound reasoning. He implies that those of us who conclude that God must be are thinking with our GUTS. That's what I refuted. I'm not having any trouble understanding the matter, TheBogle88. You are. I don't conclude that God must be based on the sentimental emotionalism of my guts. Sagan’s full of it. I repeat, we theists conclude that God must be based on empirical evidence, the fundamental apprehensions of being and the axioms of mathematics. Reason. Logic. Not guts.
Sagan is dismissed. I have nothing but contempt for the “reasoning” of those who think to disregard the ontological concerns of being and mathematics, just for starters, which scream God’s existence. And calling someone “irrational” for observing the implications of these things is not an argument at all. The Sagan’s of this world are not just fools, but bullies.
You write: "The rest of your argument rests on the erroneous notion that scientists believe ‘The end of human experience and reason are the limitations of sensory perception’ and that is simply untrue. If that were the case, we could have never split the atom, figured out how breathing works, or detected the cosmic background radiation that fills our universe."
Bong! Strawman.
That's not what I argued at all. Sagan is dismissing the existence of the transcendent based on the limitations of sensory perception and the limitations of scientific inquiry. Fact. He’s arguing that the calculi of sensory perception and empirical data relative to the limitations of science are the only legitimate basis for assessing reality. Fact. You just changed the topic on me, moved the goal posts, didn't you? I never said that the natural intuitions or inventiveness of human cognition could not be applied to science, now did I? Your strawman is dismissed, a pile of ashes.
You write: "The facts do not support or disprove the possible existence of a deity."
Bingo! You just moved the goal posts again, right back to what I was talking about all along, i.e., the existence of the transcendent, proving my case against the likes of Sagan.
Wrong.
Science can’t prove or disprove anything about the transcendent. You’ve got the word “support” in their, using it in a correlative capacity. That’s what’s known to us logicians to be the fallacy of categorical equivocation. Once again, there is plenty of empirical evidence that supports the conclusion that God must be. I see God’s fingerprints all over the cosmos and beyond. I don’t give a hoot for the opinion of Hawking et al., particularly when they insist that teleological arguments are illegitimate, yet make them all the time themselves, albeit, to the negative, in their futile attempts to overcome the problems of infinite material regression and the amazingly conducive conditions for life in our cosmos, for example. They certainly seem to be well aware of these challenges and obsessed with throwing up “solutions” in the face of them. Odd. Very odd, indeed, given Sagan’s blather about intestinal thinking.
You write: “However, drawing from what we know about the workings of the universe, an all-powerful creator seems to be highly improbable.”
You’re outside your mind. I know the science. Why don’t you put this alleged improbability into evidence and watch what I do to it.
He implies that those of us who conclude that God must be are thinking with our GUTS. Well, you haven't demonstrated you arrived at a deistic conclusion using your brain.
we theists conclude that God must be based on empirical evidence Show us atheists; we'll shut up.
The Sagan’s of this world are not just fools, but bullies. That's why all those astrophysicists are killing each other in the name of textbooks, right? Oh, those are theists murdering each other?
That's not what I argued at all. Nor is it what I argued, and yet here you are: “Right. The end of human experience and reason are the limitations of sensory perception. That‘s the ticket.” You have your straw man, as well.
Why don’t you put this alleged improbability into evidence and watch what I do to it. You claim to have empirical evidence for god: “Nonsense. Science does not find evidence. Science does not evaluate data. People do. And there is plenty of empirical data supporting the conclusion that God must be.” “This does not mean that we don't have empirical data pointing to God's existence as interpreted by any reasonable person.” “Once again, there is plenty of empirical evidence that supports the conclusion that God must be. “ Elivra also asked for this evidence, and was promptly ignored.
“I see God’s fingerprints all over the cosmos and beyond. I don’t give a hoot for the opinion of Hawking et al., particularly when they insist that teleological arguments are illegitimate, yet make them all the time themselves, albeit, to the negative, in their futile attempts to overcome the problems of infinite material regression and the amazingly conducive conditions for life in our cosmos, for example.” You see his fingerprints, you give no hoots. That’s fine for you. But this self-evidence is not evident to all. It is upon your shoulders to “show me” your god. Also, the vast majority of the universe is incompatible with human life. So, there’s that.
“Transcendent” means exceeding usual limits or being beyond comprehension. We have already filled many volumes with scientific data on things that, at one time, were transcendent.
Going back for a moment: "Sagan is dismissing the existence of the transcendent based on the limitations of sensory perception and the limitations of scientific inquiry" Sagan, like most other logical thinkers, refused to commit to the existence or non-existence of a deity because we have no evidence to draw from. None. Zero. Zip. Zlich. Nadda. Nothing. Therefore, Sagan is not dismissing the existence of the transcendent; he refused to comment on it. BAM!
Also, it's wonderful that a theist it posting his arguments to the "true" side and an atheist (myself) is posting to the "false" side. Wonderful; simply marvelous.
That’s fine for you. But this self-evidence is not evident to all. It is upon your shoulders to “show me” your god. Also, the vast majority of the universe is incompatible with human life. So, there’s that.
I don't have to show you anything. I can see clearly. Your line of sight is all fouled up with crap. Sagan is an idiot too.
Once again. . . .
Look, atheism is just another load of unexamined, irrational, pseudo-scientific crap in a long line of crap dished out by human crap since crap was crapped out by human crap. Anyone with an IQ above that of a small rash understands that. The new atheism is just a bunch brainwashed yahoos sitting around congratulating themselves on how enlightened they are about crap that no one of any real intelligence gives a crap about.
Do you even think for yourself? Or do you just have a few passages saved in a document on your computer ready for the copying? You'd gain more credence if you didn't post the same words over and over in the same order. It's either laziness or plagiarism and neither is good for public image
I have an IQ above that of a small rash, by the way. I view religion as an abomination and have no reason to believe in a deity so, grudgingly, i classify myself as an atheist for lack of a better term.
I do enjoy your attacks on the mental stability of your opponents when your arguments fail to sway them though. It's as if, by saying that anyone who had an IQ would believe as you do, you expect them to say to themselves "Well, i have a few IQ points... I guess i have to believe in God because Rawlings said so."
Doesn't sound too different from what you suggest Hawking et al. does.
And finally, if you plan to convince anyone, you actually DO have to show them the evidence of your claim. That's how it works. I think you'll find anyone with the IQ of a small rash would agree ;)
I can say that invisible frogs eats my socks and by doing so I'm giving them same level of "reality" as god has. Being as god and invisible sock-eating frogs are both subjective in that, if you believe in them they are real to you, then yes.
You are very close to assuming anti-theistic dogma and would yourself be no better than those theists and their dogma.
What I'm trying to point out is that if a "belief" has no backing at all and the only thing that keeps it breathing is that you cannot disprove that fallacy ... it does not make it 50/50.
What I'm trying to point out is that if a "belief" has no backing at all and the only thing that keeps it breathing is that you cannot disprove that fallacy
Exactly, which is why claiming there certainly is no god is just as fallacious as claiming there is one.
....or saying that you are not child molester.... until you 100% disprove it.
There is no such thing as 100% in the objective universe, you dim-witted absolutist. That brand of thinking brought the world to god, and now that some have woken up they are drawn right back to the same inability to reserve final judgement, or perhaps their own smug self-gratification, in light of the overwhelming lack of evidence in the field of deities and the supernatural.
Claiming you are 100% sure there is no god makes you the same sort of liar as the theist who claims he is 100% sure there is a god. Neither of you are right; Gnostic tendencies are virtually always fueled by desire rather than rationality. I say they are virtually always fueled in this way, because ififif there is a god, then they would have had some merit.
As I've said before, I believe the lack of evidence is enough for any reasonable person to assume there isn't a personal, judgmental god; there isn't heaven or hell. If a divine creator shaped this universe out of the abyss and into our perception, he has died long ago or left us to our own devices.
In the very best deistic situation, we are nothing more than god's ant farm. But again, we have no evidence supporting god. We have no evidence refuting god. There have been no experiments that have yielded useful data that have ever been performed. Ever.
WHEN YOU GO TO HELL AND BURN TO ASHES DONT SAY A THANG YOU WILL BE NDER GROUND WHILE US CHRISTIANS WILLL BE IN HEAVEN ON GOLDEN STREETS,LIVING THE LIFE EATING GOLDEN APPLES,GOLDEN STEAKS,FLYING AND DRINKING WONDERFUL WATER.
I'm pretty sure you're either an 11-year old troll or a duplicate account of someone looking to annoy others. Either way, you're getting on my nerves.
WHEN YOU GO TO HELL AND BURN TO ASHES DONT SAY A THANG YOU WILL BE NDER GROUND WHILE US CHRISTIANS WILLL BE IN HEAVEN ON GOLDEN STREETS,LIVING THE LIFE EATING GOLDEN APPLES,GOLDEN STEAKS,FLYING AND DRINKING WONDERFUL WATER.
Love the capitals on every letter. Anyways, where to begin.
WHEN YOU GO TO HELL AND BURN TO ASHES
According to the Bible, if Hell existed, I would estimate that 99.9999% of the population that ever existed would be there. I'd also be willing to guess you would be there too for some rather minor sin. Also, Hell is where you burn forever, not just instantly burn to ashes. Once you are dead, your body is either buried or burned, so it doesn't matter, the chances are, you're going to burn to ashes anyways.
DONT SAY A THANG YOU WILL BE NDER GROUND WHILE US CHRISTIANS WILLL BE IN HEAVEN
*Don't, thing, underground, will. Very fair, I would say, that because I have different beliefs from you, I deserve an eternity of suffering. May I ask, what about the other religions, do they also burn for an eternity? What about Judaism, based on the early iteration of the Bible, do they burn for an eternity? What about all the countless sects, do they burn for an eternity for not picking the right one which you have just suddenly declared as correct?
ON GOLDEN STREETS,LIVING THE LIFE EATING GOLDEN APPLES,GOLDEN STEAKS,FLYING AND DRINKING WONDERFUL WATER
If I wanted to go on golden streets, eat apples and steak while drinking wonderful water, I would go to a fancy restaurant. This is a vague description of what you perceive to be Heaven, although no one on this planet has been there to witness it, so you have no idea and are really just talking out of your ass right now.
In short, you're an angry troll with poor grammar and spelling.
That's basically the argument of the negative team in the debate I linked. The affirmative emphasized the absence of the word "disproves" in the resolution, though.
I downvote bad arguments, usually with an explanation of why in a message if not in the thread. The above comment doesn't even contain any arguments. I'm not sure how someone could take issue with it. I don't think it's impossible, but I sure would appreciate some illumination.
We simply have differing standards for a "good" argument. I'm not going to pretend more arguments are better-considered or less fallacious because you do. I do have my integrity.
A higher power is not supposed to exist within a material world, therefore, it is un-testable and for a anyone to take a strong stand on it would be illogical because you can not prove or disprove it.
No reason for disproving something that never was proven in a first place aka it does not exist. This is not how reasoning works, because if it would I could, for example, say that you are psychotic child molester and it's more less truth even with me bringing any evidence and it's on you to 100% disprove it.
No reason for disproving something that never was proven in a first place aka it does not exist.
You can't prove it to be real or unreal, maybe your not familiar about how science works but you have to TEST things and this just so happens to be un-testable. Do you see the flaw in taking any strong and scientific stance on this?
I tried critical thinking. It lead me to the conclusion that Religion is an abomination and that i have no opinion on the existence of one or more Gods, other than that it's as reasonable to believe there is no God as it is that there might be one, or that all Gods are aliens who came to earth in the founding years of civilization, or any variation of the above.
Believing that a 2000 year old book has exact descriptions of events that no one could be there to witness in the first place is stupid. Believing there is an all powerful force that created you is something some people need to do to keep going.
I think God is directly linked to the isolation of humanity. We are, by all accounts, alone. We have no other intelligent creatures with whom we can share ideas, it seems to be just us. We don't know how or why we're here, so, to this young philosopher, it seems as if we've created a reason for ourselves.
And before i get raged on for the 2000 year old book with accurate accounts stuff.
There were no people on the planet in when god created the Earth. If so, WHO could have been there to witness God doing it? No one.
Then, you say, God told Moses or something.
God would have to have a voice to speak to Moses. If he did, he would not have needed Moses to write it down, he could have done it himself.
Then you say, you atheist idiot, God speaks inside your head.
Think, for a second. If I walked up to you and said a voice in my head told me to do something, you'd say "You should see a professional, that's not normal." Exactly. You're taking what is at best, a story made to thrill, enthrall and teach moral lessons and at worst, the ravings of a mad lunatic, as actual fact.
some of which facts have subsequently been proven wrong.
There seems to be an issue with some atheists and this X, Y, Z god(s).
I'm realizing more and more that some atheists seem to be a bit upset and frustrated that if there is something there, why does it not show itself to humanity? Why does X, Y, Z god(s) hide away from humanity? Why does not speak directly to you? Why were you not able to touch its face, or its body?
All of these questions seem to be an underlining factor to why some atheists choose not to believe in X, Y, Z god(s), yet some atheists realize there could be something up there and around us but they've got no physical evidence to show for itself.
And thus it leaves it up to those whom do believe to come up with some sort of life changing sermon or words to change the fact that not even believers can show you the physical presence of god(s), lest the mental presence and proof of it; alas! making the term "believer" existent; believing in something not physically in front of you, or her or him.
It's almost like some atheists are quietly screaming at the top of their lungs to the universe above them "Where are you!? Why have you hid yourself from me!? Where are you!? Show me now!?", and if or when X, Y, Z god(s) doesn't come down to you personally to show you its physical being, atheists then state "There is no god(s), and we are alone, forever..."
Science also has not disproved that we are remotely controlled by super smart invisible ferrets. Should we assume that we are, until someone disproves existence of those ferrets?
"Should we assume that we are, until someone disproves" it
No, and neither should we assume there is a god. But, we don't have any evidence regarding the issue, so there is no way to say with any reasonable accuracy that there is not, nor could there be, a god.
It's very clear that no evidence has been presented to support either side of this debate. Anyone who claims other wise is basing their claim on subjective evidence and personal opinion. I, personally, find the notion of a personal god who intervenes in our lives to be ridiculous and naively anthropocentric. However, since we cannot currently speak knowledgeably on the subject, all assertions are subjective opinions only.
Where exactly was presented evidence supporting gods ?
Where exactly is the evidence disproving him? Oh, that's right. There is no evidence for or against god. None; zip; nadda; zlich. I'm an atheist, but I don't fall into the logical tar pit of certainty. Certainty is a myth; we cannot be certain, 100%, about anything, much less the existence of a deity. Even our gravitational rate is an average, and not precise the world over.
Evidence disproving is a nonsensical phrase used only to create some notion of equality regarding the existence and non-existence of a given thing. There can never be evidence that disproves fully, this does not mean that we must give credence to views that cannot be disproved. Indeed the very fact that the notion of a deity is in and of itself completely unprovable, unfalsifiable, and thusly unreasonable, means that whilst we do not have evidence disproving it per se, we do have evidence against it.
This of course is not even considering some genuine attempts to "disprove" deities (personal or impersonal), many of which are potent logical arguments (see the Problem of Evil, the Omnipotence Paradox, the 747 Gambit, etc).
Indeed the very fact that the notion of a deity is in and of itself completely unprovable, unfalsifiable, and thusly unreasonable, means that whilst we do not have evidence disproving it per se, we do have evidence against it.
But evidence against something does not exclude the possible existence of the thing. Just because we are currently unable to perform any experiments to test the god hypothesis, doesn't mean we will never be able to. It may be true that we can never know, but it may not.
But evidence against something does not exclude the possible existence of the thing
Of course, but it gives us a solid reason to not believe in it.
Just because we are currently unable to perform any experiments to test the god hypothesis, doesn't mean we will never be able to
I severely doubt we will be able to. Not using empiricism anyway.
It may be true that we can never know, but it may not.
This doesn't matter, the point is that the notion of a God is irrelevant nowadays, and thus rather than care about whether he exists or not, we should assume (in academic circles not devoted to theology) that he doesn't and move on.
Of course, but it gives us a solid reason to not believe in it.
I agree, but since we have nothing, we can say nothing.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence -Christopher Hitchens (who would surely roll over in his grave if he knew I was defending the possibility of a deity with his words)
I severely doubt we will be able to. Not using empiricism anyway.
As do I, but that still leaves a marginal chance.
e should assume (in academic circles not devoted to theology) that he doesn't and move on.
I would agree if I didn't think we might be on the verse of a new Fundamentalism around the world.
I agree, but since we have nothing, we can say nothing.
This I agree with. The concept of God should be treated with the most resounding apathy imaginable.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence
Ah yes, Christopher Hitchens, perhaps he was the only one of the "New Atheists* I still align myself with.
I would agree if I didn't think we might be on the verse of a new Fundamentalism around the world.
New Fundamentalism? I doubt it. There are surveys all over the western world right now documenting the fall of religion and the increase of atheism. Perhaps in the Middle East, but in my eyes, tension with the Western world will stop Islam becoming too strong.
Science is a method for determining the relationships between matter in the physical world. Since god is by definition metaphysical, Science can offer no opinion on Him/Her whatsoever.
However, since thought and consciousness are physical processes, science may with the improvement of neuroscience be able to offer strong theories as to where our concepts of God stem from.
On a related note, I think the scientific advances of the last 400 years or so have shown that pretty much every observed phenomena is a physical process. If that's the case, where is there room for a metaphysical actor?
We don't need neuroscience to explain "where our concepts of God stem from." For crying out loud! The rational axioms of being are many and complex, and include the fundamentals of mathematics’ calculi and geometric forms. They are ontological in nature. But the immediate axioms are logical arguments that go to the problem of origin and the nature of the construct of divinity itself. The idea of God objectively exists in and of itself: it imposes itself on our minds in terms of origin without our willing that it do so. The irreducible primary of being is the inanimateness-consciousness dichotomy. The possibility of God’s existence cannot be rationally denied, and the idea of God, unlike the material realm of being, is not subject to the challenge of infinite regression. The atheist necessarily proves the cogency of these assertions every time he denies there be any substance behind the construct.
The source goes to the problem of origin, the inescapable necessity of causality! It’s not a mystery. It’s self-evident where the construct of transcendent origination comes from.
And what are you talking about? Of course “every observed phenomena” (necessarily empirical/physical) “is a physical process”! What else would observed/empirical phenomena be? LOL! “Where is there room for a metaphysical actor?” ORIGIN! But what you really mean by "physical process" goes to "natural processes." So, you're contradictorily asserting that science cannot affirm or falsify the metaphysical while you simultaneously, though it flies right over your head, presuppose a metaphysical naturalism which cannot be affirmed or falsified by science either.
God exists, gentlemen. Make no mistake about that. The fact that He created a self-sustaining system of materiality does not undermine His practicality or necessity in any, way, shape or form. It screams intelligence, forethought, design, intent, wisdom. The argument that would undermine His practicality or necessity would be a universe of unpredictability and chaos. Of course, if the latter were the case, we wouldn’t be around to apprehend the cosmos in the first place, given that life requires a high degree of organization and stability.
The irrationality of atheism, its unwitting, inherently contradictory and self-negating thought processes, never end.
The new atheism is destroying commonsense and science.
Okay, with the exception of the last few lines every time you post this, and I've seen it quite a few times, it is exactly the same. can you post the website you CTRL-C, CTRL-V this from?
I'd really like to see what ELSE they have to say, because they are obviously better suited to debate against than someone who spouts words they know little about.
I'm serious. it's an interesting concept and I'd like to know more about it.
Only... from people who KNOW what they're talking about.
Also, you speak of causality (or should i say, the people who write what you're copying do)
If God created us
Who created God.
There must have been an origin
should I say, a cause to the effect of his existence and by extension, our creation.
Honestly, everything that exists had a point of coming into existence. So, where's God. If we needed someone to create us, he needed someone to create him.
Actually, God, by definition, is a humanization of a natural force.
Didn't read a dictionary on that one, did you?
Humanizing is what humans to to make things that have no humanity seem more human. It's how we attach ourselves to things. You know, naming cars and boats. asking a bike that has a squeaky chain if it needs oil. Calling the cup you knocked over a son of a bitch. Obviously these things don't have feelings, but we pretend they DO so we don't feel so alone.
By the way, LOVE the way you dodged my question about the people who actually wrote what you copied.
This is precisely right, Lynaldea, science cannot and does not affirm or falsify anything beyond the empirical. It cannot and does not deal with anything beyond the empirical.
It is not that science actively disputes and refutes its existence, rather it is that modern scientific theories do not require God to operate effectively, which one may consider a refutation, based on the fact that science is partially founded upon the premise that William of Ockham laid down many a century ago.
hahaha i am pretty sure you replied to the wrong post but uh for the record Christianity doesn't preclude belief in medicine and also im pretty sure we were talking about metaphorical poison
Jesus, you are just too tough a guy for me to handle. I can't handle it. My handling skills are insufficient. He's gonna drink poison for his non-faith! What a saint!
I haven't claimed that religion is an adequate substitute for medicine, buddy, and you'd have to stretch my words pretty far to claim I did. I don't get your point.
I am not "people who represents religions" (nor a Christian Scientist, which is the denomination that believes in the things you're talking about). I am this person who is opposing this resolution. If you'll check my recent arguments, I just claimed that intercessory prayer is not effective. I'm afraid you'll have to tailor your attacks to me, and not just make whatever generalized, half-formed argument you'd normally levy against those who weren't able to defend themselves.
Science says what is here and how it works, but not how or why. Science can't explain why what was before the big bang, so there can never be proof for the non existence of God.
Science can't explain what was "before" the Big Bang, because that would necessitate the existence of time at that point in history which simply can't exist.
Time may even be a byproduct of observation, we don't know.
I think that the great mystery that is Time will be solved when we solve another great mystery, the mystery of Light.
No one knows WHY it behaves as both a particle and a wave
And no one knows exactly why time slows down from the third party observer's point of view when the speed of light is reached.
Now, i may be on to something here, or just be crazy, but time and light may be mutually inclusive.
Meaning that where there is no light, such as just before the point of explosion that is "the big bang".
I mean, with light, we can see back in time to the milliseconds after the big bang. we can't see farther, perhaps because it is impossible. to do so would be to see outside our own universe. As it stands, we can't do that.
Science has not disproved God since its Theories are still incomplete. Their theoretical claim s are still into question. An example would be Stephen Hawking`s theory of the Universe. We are still not sure if life did came from nothingness and that there is no time in the black hole.
ezekiel_roma, actually, the issue is whether or not life arose from non-living material via the processes of chemical evolution, i.e., abiogenesis, not whether or not life arose from nothingness! What in the world are you talking about?
And the notion of multi-cosmological domains or a substratum of just another layer of material origination with regard to a space-mass vacuum of quantum physics would not disprove the existence God in any way, shape or form. Indeed, I’m inclined to think that a multiverse scenario coupled with the generative potentialities of the gravitational energy of the vacuum of quantum physics beyond the reach of the explanatory power of general relativity are quite plausible.
For example, such a circumstance would be absolutely no problem for the Bible whatsoever except, apparently, in the minds of the pseudo-scientific and the theologically illiterate.
Can you say, "illusion"?
This is precisely why the blather of Hawking, Krauss and others does a disservice to science, academia and rational thought.
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.
Science doesn't fill gaps. With every new answer it uncovers a multitude of new questions.
The atheist’s blather about the God of the gaps that he errantly attributes to theists is his fantasy, whereby he crams his own simplistic irrationality in the gaps that only get larger and more numerous all the time.
No, as a matter of fact, the construct of God is not subject to infinite regression. Are you an Objectivist, making Peikoff's absurdly stupid argument that an eternally self-subsistent Creator, mind you, would need a Creator? LOL!
You’re assertion is absurd, inherently contradictory. Any such argument forged against the construct of God actually proves that the idea is not subject to infinite regression. That was demonstrated centuries ago. It’s self-evident. Whether you are convinced by them or not with regard to God’s actuality, the ontological arguments for God cannot be logically overthrown or negated.
This shouldn't be Science Vs Religion, it should be Logic Vs Faith. Science, as many have stated before, lacks the ability to prove or disprove without solid, tangible evidence. Because the concept of God isn't tangible, science has no bear on it. God's existence is not something that can be proven though study of the Physical World. God's existence is something that can only be proven on the grounds of the human psyche.
Coming to think about it, Faith is to some degree logical. It's a psychological invention to put the mind at ease. There are some people, who without some form of faith in a higher power, would simply find no reason to continue existing. I believe that this is why mankind invented God.
Instead of Science Vs Religion, perhaps the argument should be "Is science the protegee of religion?". Consider the above, if you please.
I'm no believer in God, and I do have considerable respect for science. But no, science does not refute, or confirm, God. The scientific method is not intended for use on unfalsifiable premises or the supernatural.
That being said, science does constantly pull away the need to supernaturalize everything, so its understanding can lead to refutation of any supernatural explanation. But that is more like a side effect than a direct refutation.
As for me, I am not sure that science refutes God. Both of these things are connected with each other. How did science was created without people, and how did people came in without unexplained power? God created us, our imagination, science and so on and so on.
I am not atheist and believe in science also. But, anyway, there would be nothing without creation, so we can't say that science refutes God.
