| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/09/2007 08:26:55 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Whatever it is you want to call it that existed before what we see now, even that had to come from somewhere. Arguing that it just sprang into existence from nothing at all is as much an appeal to ignorance as saying it was created from fairy dust, if ignorance is defined as such. |
Isn't it interesting that God isn't held to the same standard? Essentially, science and religion BOTH claim that everything sprang from nothing at all, yet the same folks who willingly believe that God has either always existed or came from nowhere reject the same concept for the universe itself as an impossibility. :-/
It's these differing philosophies that make it difficult or impossible for science and theology to co-exist. Science cannot accept a belief without evidence, but it can accept evidence until proven (one way or the other). Theology, on the other hand, depends upon belief without evidence (or even in spite of it), yet cannot accept evidence without proof... and even then, it takes a while. |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 08:27:10 PM · #27 |
Well, if during one of those bangs there was no one there to hear it, was it noisy?
|
|
|
|
11/09/2007 08:29:47 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Whatever it is you want to call it that existed before what we see now, even that had to come from somewhere. Arguing that it just sprang into existence from nothing at all is as much an appeal to ignorance as saying it was created from fairy dust, if ignorance is defined as such. |
Isn't it interesting that God isn't held to the same standard? Essentially, science and religion BOTH claim that everything sprang from nothing at all, yet the same folks who willingly believe that God has either always existed or came from nowhere reject the same concept for the universe itself as an impossibility. :-/
It's these differing philosophies that make it difficult or impossible for science and theology to co-exist. Science cannot accept a belief without evidence, but it can accept evidence until proven (one way or the other). Theology, on the other hand, depends upon belief without evidence (or even in spite of it), yet cannot accept evidence without proof... and even then, it takes a while. |
Very true. |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 08:49:30 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Well, if during one of those bangs there was no one there to hear it, was it noisy? |
Only if the ISO was set too high ... |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 09:21:34 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Whatever it is you want to call it that existed before what we see now, even that had to come from somewhere. Arguing that it just sprang into existence from nothing at all is as much an appeal to ignorance as saying it was created from fairy dust, if ignorance is defined as such. |
Isn't it interesting that God isn't held to the same standard? Essentially, science and religion BOTH claim that everything sprang from nothing at all, yet the same folks who willingly believe that God has either always existed or came from nowhere reject the same concept for the universe itself as an impossibility. :-/
It's these differing philosophies that make it difficult or impossible for science and theology to co-exist. Science cannot accept a belief without evidence, but it can accept evidence until proven (one way or the other). Theology, on the other hand, depends upon belief without evidence (or even in spite of it), yet cannot accept evidence without proof... and even then, it takes a while. |
Very poignant post, Shannon.
These arguments are placed in the context of our frame of reference. As history has proven, this framework is constantly shifting. The physical and metaphysical have been shown to overlap on countless occasions. Until something can be explained to the human senses as perceptible to the human senses, it is discounted as supernatural. That's human nature.
Something about the human brain encourages us to sort these phenomenon into separate piles. Both Science and Religion exist to convince us that they are unilateral entities; when the evidence clearly points to the fact that they are inseparably intertwined.
Message edited by author 2007-11-09 21:22:18. |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 10:49:56 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Isn't it interesting that God isn't held to the same standard? Essentially, science and religion BOTH claim that everything sprang from nothing at all, yet the same folks who willingly believe that God has either always existed or came from nowhere reject the same concept for the universe itself as an impossibility. :-/
It's these differing philosophies that make it difficult or impossible for science and theology to co-exist. Science cannot accept a belief without evidence, but it can accept evidence until proven (one way or the other). Theology, on the other hand, depends upon belief without evidence (or even in spite of it), yet cannot accept evidence without proof... and even then, it takes a while. |
That was kind of my point at the beginning.
Both sides feel like they have the answer, yet instead of embracing, and researching each other's perspective, they stick their heads in the sand and try to pass off their way as the only way, yet both sides have demonstrated that their respective ways keep changing over time.....and radically at that.....and that neither of them has the real answer.
In one of the other threads on this, I kinda threw out some of my oddball perspectives on the whole thing as I see it, and it kinda fizzled......that's fine.
I'd be sort of curious about some of your personal, subjective takes on the subject because most of the things that I've seen flare up have been coming from people who I believe to be pretty sharp and have some strong feelings on the subject, but they've been kinda general.
F'rinstance, in my view, there is a God, I see clear evidence of his grace in my life, but I totally and completely embrace evolution of most of what's here today simply because I believe the proof that science has shown me.
My belief system is somewhat tailored by my upbringing and environment, but I have also eschewed most of that for a different style of religion and spirituality that I embraced about two years ago, and I'll go into that further if this train of thought continues.
So really........in my mind, Science and Theology HAVE to co-exist in order for existence to make any sense at all to me.
I don't have any answers or beliefs as to its start though.....I accept the premise that it has always been.
A copout, I know, but the origin isn't really as important to me so much as the way it all works now.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2007 10:52:02 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Both Science and Religion exist to convince us that they are unilateral entities; when the evidence clearly points to the fact that they are inseparably intertwined. |
What evidence is that? |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 10:54:37 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Both sides feel like they have the answer, yet instead of embracing, and researching each other's perspective, they stick their heads in the sand and try to pass off their way as the only way... |
No. I think you'll find that, should there be irrefutable proof of, say, the existence of a god, those of a scientific bent would accept it immediately. If the reverse were true, irrefutable proof of the non-existence of a god, I think you'll find that most god-believers would deny it.
edit sp.
Message edited by author 2007-11-09 22:55:01. |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 11:06:25 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Louis:
No. I think you'll find that, should there be irrefutable proof of, say, the existence of a god, those of a scientific bent would accept it immediately. If the reverse were true, irrefutable proof of the non-existence of a god, I think you'll find that most god-believers would deny it. |
That's not surprising, because one of the fundamentals of logic is that you can't prove the non-existence of something. You can never "prove" to me that there's no such thing as, say, pink snow. But if I can find a single instance of pink snow, I can prove its existence to you.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2007 11:13:37 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Louis:
No. I think you'll find that, should there be irrefutable proof of, say, the existence of a god, those of a scientific bent would accept it immediately. If the reverse were true, irrefutable proof of the non-existence of a god, I think you'll find that most god-believers would deny it. |
That's not surprising, because one of the fundamentals of logic is that you can't prove the non-existence of something. You can never "prove" to me that there's no such thing as, say, pink snow. But if I can find a single instance of pink snow, I can prove its existence to you.
R. |
Indeed. But why is it not surprising to you that, should there suddenly be irrefutable scientific proof of god's non-existence, believers would likely refuse to accept it? That may be trite, but that's actually what I said, and based on past evidence I think that would be the case. |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 11:41:25 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You can never "prove" to me that there's no such thing as, say, pink snow. But if I can find a single instance of pink snow, I can prove its existence to you. |
I can prove the existence of yellow snow. If that counts. |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 11:50:41 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Indeed. But why is it not surprising to you that, should there suddenly be irrefutable scientific proof of god's non-existence, believers would likely refuse to accept it? That may be trite, but that's actually what I said, and based on past evidence I think that would be the case. |
The point is, there cannot be such irrefutable proof of the non-existence of ANYTHING, never mind God.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2007 12:46:58 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The point is, there cannot be such irrefutable proof of the non-existence of ANYTHING, never mind God. |
So we can't possibly disprove the existence of, say, Superman or 8000ft Twinkies? Interesting. Can we invoke reasonable doubt? I've been told there's no such thing as a living human without sin... ;-) |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 12:51:19 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The point is, there cannot be such irrefutable proof of the non-existence of ANYTHING, never mind God. |
So we can't possibly disprove the existence of, say, Superman or 8000ft Twinkies? Interesting. Can we invoke reasonable doubt? I've been told there's no such thing as a living human without sin... ;-) |
Well, sure you can if you feel you need to. But consider this; it's not all that long ago when people in one part of the world had NO experience of other parts of the world, and they'd laugh you out of the village if you expressed a belief in something they'd never seen. And yet, time came when the existence of that thing entered the realm of the provable.
It's a big, big universe. I wouldn't rule anything out just 'cuz we are not familiar with it.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2007 01:02:13 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...it's not all that long ago when people in one part of the world had NO experience of other parts of the world, and they'd laugh you out of the village if you expressed a belief in something they'd never seen. |
It also wasn't that long ago that several cultures believed this planet was supported by a giant turtle. I think we have since proven conclusively that nearby regions of outer space are turtle-free. |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 01:32:13 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It also wasn't that long ago that several cultures believed this planet was supported by a giant turtle. I think we have since proven conclusively that nearby regions of outer space are turtle-free. |
Sure. It's definitely possible to be ridiculous. Nevertheless, we have not proven that nowhere in the universe does a giant turtle support a planet. The thing of it is, this idea of "God" is not as ridiculous as that idea of a giant, planet-bearing turtle. because, when all is said and done, whether speaking of religion or science, you are left the problem of prime movers, first causes. We cannot even BEGIN to comprehend how the stuff of the universe came into being.
We THINK we comprehend, or are beginning to comprehend, how this (apparently) expanding universe of ours began its expansion; but this does nothing to explain how the raw stuff that began to expand into what we now call "the universe" first came into being. maybe God's the answer, maybe He isn't the answer, but we don't know. We don't even have a clue, just some wild ideas.
I find this "rational" ridiculing of the idea of God to be a bit wearying, and more than a little bit sad. We live in a place of almost infinite mystery, and somehow the brightest brains of our race have decided, based on our few puny centuries of human experience, that they know the answers, or that in any case they can definitively eliminate God as a possible answer.
I don't think you can do that, and I don't know why you should even try.
I do understand how people might feel the need to debunk the Christian God, the whole Bible mystique, the very idea of a personally-involved God, I really do. But this, to me, isn't the same thing as saying "there is no God, there is no Prime Mover."
I think there's something bigger than us, and you can't prove there's not.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2007 05:25:31 AM · #42 |
| I doubt anyone will, but if anyone is genuinely curious, and would like some answers how 'everything sprang from nothing' (not really the case...) look at the selfish gene, or at least look at the Miller-Urey experiment. Its not fair to dismiss something without doing a bit of homework first ;) |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 07:55:28 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
We THINK we comprehend, or are beginning to comprehend, how this (apparently) expanding universe of ours began its expansion; but this does nothing to explain how the raw stuff that began to expand into what we now call "the universe" first came into being. maybe God's the answer, maybe He isn't the answer, but we don't know. We don't even have a clue, just some wild ideas.
I find this "rational" ridiculing of the idea of God to be a bit wearying, and more than a little bit sad. We live in a place of almost infinite mystery, and somehow the brightest brains of our race have decided, based on our few puny centuries of human experience, that they know the answers, or that in any case they can definitively eliminate God as a possible answer.
I don't think you can do that, and I don't know why you should even try.
I do understand how people might feel the need to debunk the Christian God, the whole Bible mystique, the very idea of a personally-involved God, I really do. But this, to me, isn't the same thing as saying "there is no God, there is no Prime Mover."
I think there's something bigger than us, and you can't prove there's not.
R. |
Yeah, That!.......8>)
One other thing that puzzles me is the question of why does there have to be a start anyway?
And I mean God/universe, not just man/earth
The whole concept of something coming from nothingness doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It would seem to me that something has always been.
Otherwise, how could anything be here?
|
|
|
|
11/10/2007 07:56:43 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
I doubt anyone will, but if anyone is genuinely curious, and would like some answers how 'everything sprang from nothing' (not really the case...) look at the selfish gene, or at least look at the Miller-Urey experiment. Its not fair to dismiss something without doing a bit of homework first ;) |
The premise that everything sprang from nothing doesn't work for me.
YMMV!
|
|
|
|
11/10/2007 09:38:21 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I find this "rational" ridiculing of the idea of God to be a bit wearying, and more than a little bit sad. We live in a place of almost infinite mystery, and somehow the brightest brains of our race have decided, based on our few puny centuries of human experience, that they know the answers, or that in any case they can definitively eliminate God as a possible answer.
I don't think you can do that, and I don't know why you should even try.
I think there's something bigger than us, and you can't prove there's not.
R. |
Your entire statement was very well stated.......this deserves repeating.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2007 10:21:38 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
...Your entire statement was very well stated.......this deserves repeating. |
It is indeed well stated... but why does it warrant repeating.
I don't happen to share Robert's contention that people are "ridiculing" God, but rather that they providing a critical analysis of the facts (or lack thereof) of some of those that would have the masses follow blindly without questioning.
No one can prove or disprove the existence of a god in any form, but what can be analyzed are some of the pseudo facts that have been bantied about by those that do... therein lies the difference.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 10:54:47 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
I doubt anyone will, but if anyone is genuinely curious, and would like some answers how 'everything sprang from nothing' (not really the case...) look at the selfish gene, or at least look at the Miller-Urey experiment. Its not fair to dismiss something without doing a bit of homework first ;) |
No offense but neither of those have any bearing at all on a discussion about existence popping out of thin air. Both assume the precursors to the end result are already present beforehand. So I'm not sure what homework you're doing, but I think you're in the wrong class. |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 11:09:17 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I don't happen to share Robert's contention that people are "ridiculing" God, but rather that they providing a critical analysis of the facts (or lack thereof) of some of those that would have the masses follow blindly without questioning. |
But some people, in these threads, ARE ridiculing the idea of God, or at least ridiculing the (unprovable) ideas of those who believe in God. I got no problem at all with those who do rational critique of those ideas.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2007 11:18:23 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I don't happen to share Robert's contention that people are "ridiculing" God, but rather that they providing a critical analysis of the facts (or lack thereof) of some of those that would have the masses follow blindly without questioning. |
But some people, in these threads, ARE ridiculing the idea of God, or at least ridiculing the (unprovable) ideas of those who believe in God. I got no problem at all with those who do rational critique of those ideas.
R. |
Then there are those who believe in God that would have ridiculed my father's beliefs in the Great Manitou, or his asking forgiveness from the deer he killed to feed his family... because in their eyes that would not have been a true depiction of what God is nor what constitutes proper veneration.
Ridicule is not limited to the non-believers... trust me I have been there. (* but that is another subject)
Ray
Message edited by author 2007-11-10 11:19:25. |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 11:32:33 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I find this "rational" ridiculing of the idea of God to be a bit wearying, and more than a little bit sad. We live in a place of almost infinite mystery, and somehow the brightest brains of our race have decided, based on our few puny centuries of human experience, that they know the answers, or that in any case they can definitively eliminate God as a possible answer. |
No. We can definitively eliminate any unsound postulate not supported by the evidence all around us in the universe, and currently, that includes a large bearded man that lives in the sky. I'm sorry if that sounds like ridiculing, but that's the simple fact of the matter.
Perhaps you should consider that what may come off as ridicule is actually a defense mechanism. This culture is positively saturated with belief in gods, and all the irrational behaviour that seems to entail. Further, the problem of prosyletizing, and connecting one's beliefs to politics, in my view exacerbates this into a social issue for atheists.
The defense is, "Fine. You say that the ficitional character of Jesus Christ is my only path to the fictional land of heaven, and without it, I shall have no vote? Let me point out in as logical, and comical, a way that I can how ridiculous that is."
To turn a Christian phrase, I believe that atheists don't disdain the believer, they merely disdain the irrational belief, and recognize its potential for danger. Some are not as eloquent or patient or rational as others, but I think what they have in common is having reached the saturation point in a culture that, until recently, brooked no serious dissent in this matter. As a thoughtful man with many useful insights, I know you come out on the side of the individual, and ultimately understand that we are arguing about ideas, not personalities. |
|
