<p>As far as I’m concerned, religion by its very definition cannot exist within the realms of science. The way I see it, there are all of these religions making these supernatural claims. I have no interest in these claims, because they haven’t been proven. When and if evidence is found in support of a religion (probably never going to happen), there would no longer exist a debate over who is right and wrong.</p>
<p>The bottom line is, these idiots do not understand the basic concept of “burden of proof”…</p>
<p>^ The burden of proof rests on the person who would present their theory as indisputable fact and require everyone to make their decisions based on it and teach it in the schools.</p>
<p>we were talking about this in my philosophy class today…</p>
<p>the ontological argument,
cosmological argument
teleological argument,
and other stuff. </p>
<p>i concluded that since the argument in itself is not able to be falsified nor proved, it cannot even be posed as a argument. </p>
<p>Therefore you guys are arguing something that cannot be argued for or argued against.
just leave it be everyone. We will find out when we’re dead.</p>
<p>I personally don’t care at all if there is a god or not. if there is he is a *ick, if there is not a god, then its what i expected.</p>
<p>MosbyMarion would likely argue that these presentations are too inconclusive and insufficient to hold the gravity most science-minded people believe.</p>
<p>data? objective? all data is subjective. if your a idealist (meaning that we cannot truly know something as it is but can only know a representation of it as it relates to our sensory organs)</p>
<p>yeah i agree it’s pointless to argue such a topic. but think, if it’s so pointless to argue, it must be even more pointless to present such a topic in the first place. religion loses.</p>
<p>No, the “burden of evidence” is a burden on the theists. However, I am a devoted Christian and understand that we cannot “prove” God. There is a fundamental difference between “The Divine” and “The Natural World.” Science isn’t concerned with God; rather, its job is to uncover the mysteries behind our non-divine world. Hence, science and theology are fundamentally different entities. Because one cannot “prove” God, however, religion will always require a degree of faith (as leader of the NIH and devoted Christian, Fancis Collins says).</p>
<p>Now, I can see one’s point that Genesis evokes the image of a God who is actively involved in the creation of our world and still intervenes in it. Yet, that simply is one way to interpret the Bible. Deism has thrived in our world since the days of Newton. I simply do not see just cause for one to believe science “disproves” the idea that a God could exist outside of the universe we live in and has not intervened in our world since the act of creation. Sure, it you want to try to “prove” the existence of God, then, you will fail. Yet, I fundamentally want to believe we all have a higher purpose in life and that we all don’t simply live for a short period of time. Honestly, I don’t see why anyone would want to believe this. So, I simply believe one needs to respect christianity (and atheism) and let each period hold the beliefs they do without deciding one system is “wrong.” For if one did declare someone was “wrong” about God, they would be terribly ignorant.</p>
<p>Rtgrove, I have a question. Why do you identify yourself as a Christian. You seem to have a good grasp of how science and religion works. Surely you know about the subjectivity and the outdated content of most religious text. Surely it is rather obvious that religion is man made (actually for ME, it seems obvious… maybe not to you). I’m not saying that there is no God. I do not believe in God but I must be open to the idea that God COULD exist. However, I believe God’s existance would be independant and seperate from any particular religion (which, I believe, is man made). I don’t find the concept of God impossible (unlikely perhaps although that can be debated… but not impossible). What I do not understand is people’s insistance of being identified under a PARTICULAR religion. I’ve always thought of religion as being a “middle man” between humans and God (if he/she/it exists). Surely people realize that, more often than not, people are born into a particular religion and decide to follow that particular one throughout their lives. For example, if one is born into a Muslim family, he/she will most likely adopt Islam as his/her religion. The same can be said for someone who is born into a Christian family. In my opinion, religion is too subjective and depends on a variety of earthly factors (location of birth, religion of parents etc.). Like I said, I don’t believe in God but if such a supernatural force were to exist, I don’t believe that the God would be any one religion’s God. This is rarely discussed… people are either religious (follow a particular religion) or atheist. It’s more difficult to find people who may believe in God without identifying with a particular religion.</p>
<p>^It would be awesome if all religions all led to God but Jesus for example claimed that he was the only way to heaven (and I’m sure that all religions claim something exclusive about them as well) so we’re forced to pick sides.</p>
<p>I am a christian because it is in that environment where I feel most comfortable worshipping the deity that I believe exists. I am not really informed enough about other religions to make the very arrogant claim that the God I worship exists and the God they worship does not. In reality, though, I see the religion itself as something that isnt all that important. I see an individual as a believer in God, an agnostic, or an atheist. I hope that a God exists and am willing to take the leap faith required to declare that I am indeed a believer in God. I understand some do not.</p>
<p>Ha, you are missing the very cornerstone of religion: faith. In order to be a follower of a religious sect, one must have faith in the supernatural. One must have faith that there is a God. </p>
<p>I, personally, believe that the Catholic church and all religions alike are some of the greatest businesses in the world and have the greatest motto: if you don’t follow us, after death you’ll have a hard time. Fear of the unknown (i.e. “life” after death) is a fear that is commonplace in nearly every individual. Religions utilize this fear to their advantage, whether that be by convincing their followers to donate money or by practically picking a certain politician as their followers’ candidate. </p>
<p>It’s the perfect business scandal since there is no way that one can prove God doesn’t exist, because there is no way to prove he exists in the first place. It’s a paradox, really. </p>
<p>Even though I believe this, I am a practicing Catholic. Why? I’m betting on Pascal’s wager.</p>
<p>While I agree that what boraymund said is…well…disturbing. He’s not really wrong. Pascal’s wager is a big reason why many people affliate themselves with a religion. Are they wrong are for doing it? Yup, but it still happens.</p>
<p>Yes, I just thought that my satirical comment would be a more effective means of illustrating the logical inconsistency of the practice of feigned and fearful reverence. </p>
<p>With that said, I don’t think that there is anything meaningful to add to this thread. I am, in fact, surprised that mifune posted here for as long as he did.</p>
<p>Such as? Science has no answer for the mystery of why there is something instead of nothing.</p>
<p>Really, show me any evidence that disproves the existence of a God. Before you go off on a strawman argument, let me define what I mean by God here:</p>
<p>God: The thing that caused the original Cause to exist. This thing has no cause itself, and is not bound by any natural laws. It is sentient in the sense that It’s actions are not determined by some law or formula.</p>
<p>As of yet I leave it undefined whether this Thing still acts upon the world today, or whether it is the same as the God described by any particular religion.</p>
<p>Most “science-minded” people, even those who are atheists, do not try to claim that science has irrefutably disproven the concept of God. If you read up the writings of actual scientists in tthe fields of Evolution and Astrophysics you will find that most are far more reasonable than the people in this thread.</p>