<p>Science. 10char</p>
<p>Subjective response is subjective</p>
<p>This thread remains irrelevant</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I must dissent from some others on this thread by conceding that I do not believe that the existence of a god can ever be disproven completely; it could, in theory, exist beyond our reality. I come here with no agenda or atheistic or theistic biases, though I must be honest: you have offered absolutely no proof of the existence of any god, let alone a specific God, that would be compelling to any person who is rationally considering the claims. There is no explicit evidence of the existence of a god. There is no evidence of supernatural intervention. There are, in contrast, billions of observations every day by the planet’s intelligent inhabitants that are consistent with the methodical field of science, a branch that functions effectively within our reality and involves nothing of the theistic sort. If you have shared everything that has led you to the fervent beliefs that you have outlined thus far in this thread, your standard for evidence sets up an absurd precedent.</p>
<p>it’s a never-ending argument. believe what you want to believe. there’s your (your) winner.</p>
<p>agreed…</p>
<p>I, again, agree with you, silverturtle. I sincerely believe that Christianity is every bit as logical as atheism. Both assume absolute truth in light of no true evidence. Now, is agnosticism prbly the most “logical religious stance?” You bet. However, I think Kirkegaard said it best when he declared, “If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. If I wish to preserve myself in faith I must constantly be intent upon holding fast the objective uncertainty, so as to remain out upon the deep, over seventy fathoms of water still preserving my faith.”</p>
<p>^ In that case, I am an Agnostic Atheist since I personally find the existance of God to be rather unlikely and have not been given any sort of indication that would prove otherwise. However, I can’t claim to know this as a certainty because, as you all have mentioned, God cannot be disproven. </p>
<p>However, Rtgrove, I disgaree with your notion that Christianity and atheism is equally logical. Atheism is the absense of a belief in God partially due to lack of observable evidence. No evidence–> no belief. Christianity, however, is the belief in God despite lack of evidence and, thus, dealing with faith. No evidence–> belief. You can counter my argument by providing evidence that a God of some sort exists but I am almost certain that you cannot. I, however, am open to the concept if someone were to make a compelling and rational argument.</p>
<p>alam-</p>
<p>I see your point and you may be right about that. However, I guess the point I was trying to get across was both atheism and christianity require faith.</p>
<p>One fallacy commonly committed by religious folk when confronted with why they believe, is that they act as if there is a 50/50 chance that god is real and that he isn’t. If I make the claim that I have a million dollars in my backpack… that’s either true or it’s not. Same principle applies to a God. This is all of course in the context of religion, rather than philosophy.</p>
<p>To even out my rambling on, here is a very interesting and relevant video discussing the matter at hand. One thing Carl Sagan says that strikes me as very profound is “every human culture has a set of creation myths.” Enjoy.</p>
<p>[YouTube</a> - Carl Sagan - God, the Universe, & Everything Else](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O9cYTZXekA]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O9cYTZXekA)</p>
<p>
I think you’re confusing ‘profound’ with ‘statement of obvious fact’.</p>
<p>No, let me elaborate. Maybe I need to include more of the quote to get my point across.</p>
<p>“…but they’re in the realm of mythology, religion, or folklore, and they are, of course, all mutually inconsistent.”</p>
<p>What he does there and effectively lumps all religions and myths together and makes no distinction between them, because none need be made in a discussion involving intelligent and scientifically-oriented minds.</p>
<p>@silverturtle: Ok then, you are a lot more reasonable than many of the people I have debated. Thank you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That depends on what you mean by “god”. The existence of the “supernatural” is, I believe, shown by the fact that all effects must have a cause, yet things exist. The choices are either an infinite series of causes stretching back into the past, which merely ducks the question, or the existence somewhere of something that can act without regard for any system of mathematical laws. The only way I know to describe such a thing is to call it sentience. Even randomness requires a reason for the probabilities to be what they are.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree, except for the words “in contrast”. The usefulness of observation and scientific reasoning is not effected by whether the consistent patterns in the world were caused by a god or by nothing, except that if the latter is true there is no reason for it to be worth the bother. However, nothing in these observations is inconsistent with the idea of a god, and many things are, in my opinion, inconsistent with the idea of a Naturalistic universe.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My reasons for believing in Christ and Christanity are very personal and irrelevant to this debate. I’m making a case here against Atheism, not for Christianity. Primarily I am attempting to show that it is not neccesary to be an Atheist to use science successfully.</p>
<p>@alam:</p>
<p>If no god exists, the only option remaining is Naturalism, which, as I have said many times, I find logically inconsistent. When Naturalism is eliminated, no option is left us besides Theism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The idea that a universe has always existed is no less logical than the idea that a god has always existed.</p>
<p>MM: Its pretty obvious that you don’t understand the concept of burden of proof. You provide absolutely nothing to this thread by making logical fallacies. Whats sad is that you dont even realize it and people who dont know any better might think your educated on this topic. And you tell someone to not make a straw man argument when all you do is misrepresent scientific fact and annoyingly pass it on as fact. Mifune has won this debate MANY times over but what good is it to argue w/ someone who wont concede when scientific evidence proves you wrong, lies, and makes false statements? And take a look at your arguments:</p>
<p>The earth is 6000 years old - WRONG</p>
<p>Evolution doesn’t exist - WRONG</p>
<p>Dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time - WRONG</p>
<p>W/o a god the mind couldn’t exist - WRONG</p>
<p>These are such grossly stupid opinions which can be disproved many times over by any qualified scientist w/ expertise. The worst part is that they’re fixed on your brain and you wont let go of them even when your proven wrong, which has been done a countless number of times during this thread. mifune was right - you are like talking to a “the holocaust never happened” person. They put on a facade like they are educated and think they are logical (when they’re not) and spew bogus arguments. Realistically, they’re just brainwashed ignorant clucks. And what good is there to argue w/ a brainwashed person who is ignorant of fact?</p>
<p>And about the universe, its clear that you know nothing about quantum theory where stuff occurs without cause. Saying that a god did it doesnt solve anything. What made your god? To say that its everlasting or eternal doesnt work and runs into conflict with free will which runs into trouble w/ omniscience etc (see mifune’s explanation). Its just in your head b/c thats what youve been taught to believe.</p>
<p>So my basic point is why should anyone believe one word that comes out of your mouth when you make such a pathetic attempt to argue, thrive on logical fallacies, false facts and completely ignorant arguments?</p>
<p>Religion shouldn’t contradict science. Any logical person will see that there shouldn’t be a conflict at all. </p>
<p>The difference between science and religion is simple. Science takes the best theory available and keeps it until a better one comes along. And unlike religion, science doesn’t need to fill the gaps (and yes there are MANY gaps in science) with fairytales. In the case of not knowing, ideal science is perfectly willing to admit that its view is incomplete. </p>
<p><a href=“http://nomadcom.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/sciencevsfaith.gif[/url]”>http://nomadcom.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/sciencevsfaith.gif</a></p>
![http://nomadcom.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/sciencevsfaith.gif[/url]](http://nomadcom.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/sciencevsfaith.gif%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
<p>Since this is America, I think everyone should have the right to believe whatever they want. If you don’t believe in God nor religion I’m not going to question your reasoning as you make your own decisions. All i have to say is that, yes we CANNOT prove God exists with 100 % scientific evidence however that’s the point of faith. Personally I think that people should keep their beliefs to themselves and not try to impose their views onto other people.</p>
<p>^ Search for “Sam Harris at Idea City '05” on YouTube for a good explanation of why we should criticize other people’s beliefs.</p>
<p>uuugh why is this thread so complicated??!</p>
<p>
okay so basically:</p>
<ul>
<li>I’m sure there IS a god. I don’t understand why people don’t believe in one. The reason behind why we’re created is because God wants to test your faith…and how strong it is etc. </li>
</ul>
<p>-You don’t need proof that a God exists out there. There are already millions of examples that proves that indeed he does exist. People also need to understand the concept of simply having faith and believing that one exits out there.</p>
<p>-not believing in God is arrogant.</p>
<p>-why would you take a risk in not believing? aren’t you afraid of what’s going to happen to you AFTER you die…?</p>