<p>are you saying that since the laws of nature are testable, then god does not exist? can you test for me that causation ONLY exists inside the universe? is it evolution testable? what about the beginnings of the universe? this is exactly my point about “the ideologies we bring to” science. you bring your own ideologies about time/causation which even athiests do not all agree with. and i believe paro, who many times has tried to assert, is right to some extent.</p>
<p>“Eventually, I’m sure proof will be discovered.”</p>
<p>that’s funny–paro’s point. even your belief requires faith.</p>
<p>4815…</p>
<p>I PM’d you and e-mailed you. :):)</p>
<p>EDIT: and qwilde, my PM to him further elaborates on the reasoning you’re posting. I think it’s sumed up by Nietzsche saying “Why finds no answer.” The questions of “Why is anything here?” etc. are not applicable to a universe that exists devoid of humans acknowledging it as such, and devoid of conventional purposeful meaning.</p>
<p>qwilde, you said that you believe that the universe was caused by chemical and phsyical reactions…but you look over the fact that there are no chemical and physical things to react and set the universe in motion. At some point all logic breaks down and thats where God comes in.</p>
<p>sry…disregard that last statement…it wasnt qwilde…it was paro…but the statement above still applies in general</p>
<p>Since it is easier to prove a positive than it is a negative (the concept of our judicial system), the primary concern should be to prove the existence of god, not the other way around. k. and since that is impossible, and all you have for your case is old books and passed-on teachings, i think we’re done here. the prevalence of religion is directly retated to the hardships a country experiences. additionally, religion is related to fear of death, nature, and the unknown. i will not say god doesnt exist, but i will not say he exists either. for both is wrong and to claim to know that question is ridiculous. what i do strongly believe, however, is that all organized religion is wrong. in the moral and truth sense.</p>
<p>hoodhopper exactly!! “logic breaks down” << But this does not mean we attribute a Divine creator to it all, it means that there’s a problem with the logic. Namely that our natural human tendency to attribute “reason” and “purpose” to the universe is wrong at the starting point. We can’t apply human reasoning to entities that fall out of our sphere of causality.</p>
<p>are you saying that since the laws of nature are testable, then god does not exist? </p>
<p>No, I was stating that science does not support the theory of god.</p>
<p>can you test for me that causation ONLY exists inside the universe?
I can prove causation exists inside the universe and since time constrains cause and affect I can assert that the laws of causation develop an entirely new meaning outside of the universe because they are not restrained by time. Ultimately, no I cannot. I am not outside of the universe.</p>
<p>is it evolution testable?
Evolution has been proved over and over again. Are you aware that neanderthals wern’t even apart of the human race. They were an entirely different species altogether, which was discovered in 1996 in Munich, Germany I believe (maybe wrong about the date). I recommend that you read the Origin of Species and the Grant’s work in the Galapagos.</p>
<p>that’s funny–paro’s point. even your belief requires faith.</p>
<p>Yes, I have faith. I have faith in myself, my family, and the intrinsic good of human nature. I belive in love, peace, and altruism. I am not faithless, I merely don’t believe in god…and is that so awful since there are 1000’s of gods, which presumably you don’t believe in? I only believe in one less god than you.</p>
<p>4815, he wasn’t saying that because the only the laws of the universe are testable God necessarily does not exist. He was merely saying there is no reason to believe that he does. Believing that God exists without any evidence whatsoever is by definition naive and ignorant.</p>
<p>Jyank:</p>
<p>“Believing that God exists without any evidence whatsoever is by definition naive and ignorant.”</p>
<p>yet that’s the essence of christianity, salvation by faith. if there’s evidence to support the faith, then that means human understanding can perceive that part of gods plan. if not, that’s where faith really comes in. if you need evidence to have faith, that’s called logic/rationalism.</p>
<p>are religions the most logical way of explaining the universe? no. do they need to be? no. that’s why they are religions not philosophies, there’s not really a rational basis for argument. the most used defense for christians is cuz god said so in the bible, and that’s the bottom line and that’s enough. its like atheists believe logic/science to be self-sufficient.</p>
<p>yet to say that he doesnt exist is not naive and ignorant. right…</p>
<p>Sorry, I neglected to include in my previous post that Heisenberg’s Uncertaintiy Principle is a chief reason why science does not support the theory God.</p>
<p>logic/science IS self-sufficient. The bible is a collection of folk stories and works by the apostles. I believe it is a book that instills morals in people, telling them how to live. I do not believe that it was written by God. If God exists outside space and time, how did he give us a book?</p>
<p>4815: I’m not SAYING he doesn’t exist. I’m saying that I have no reason to believe he does, so I choose not to. Is it possible he exists? Sure…but I’m not going believe it. I also do not believe in the flying spaghetti monster (sorry, paro!)</p>
<p>i think someone should focus on attacking my post rather than jyankees. i’m bored and this could be interesting.</p>
<p>letmepass: Religion/philosophy-- THOSE are things you believe in. Science is not. Science is testable. People who don’t understand the elegance of that are the ones who generally relate the two as if they’re in any way comparable…</p>
<p>“Believing that God exists without any evidence whatsoever is by definition naive and ignorant.”</p>
<p>yet that’s the essence of christianity, salvation by faith. if there’s evidence to support the faith, then that means human understanding can perceive that part of gods plan. if not, that’s where faith really comes in. if you need evidence to have faith, that’s called logic and rationalism.</p>
<p>Yes, but look what blind faith has done to humanity. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the continuation of slavery, etc.</p>
<p>mmkay I feel the same way… everyone constantly seems to ignore what I say…</p>
<p>i know. it’s ridiculous…theyre like “god exists” and we debate , but then we attack every point they make, but they pick and choose when one of us makes a slightly faux logic point and ignore the best points. go home. this debate is over. there needs to be some judges from the national forensic league or something.</p>
<p>"ogic/science IS self-sufficient. "</p>
<p>that’s what atheists believe, but it’s also a faith. there are plenty of things science cannot yet answer. how life operates, schrodinger cat, and the whole quantum physics field… sure you can say we have not yet found an answer but we will in the future, and that’s the same as chrisitians say they will understand gods plan eventually. and god gave us the bible by inspiring the apostles. how can he do that? cuz he’s all-powerful. if you want proof of this, there are plenty of miracles in the bible. if you doubt the bible, there are still prob. evidence out there to prove it, but in christianity people are not meant to be persuaded in order to believe. it’s like trying to explain the rules of inverse matices when you don’t believe 1+1=2.</p>
<p>I have a “Superior Distinction” from the national forensic league. I think that makes me qualified. I declare that we win.</p>