Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

J C · 27-02-2013 9:29pm

Zombrex wrote: »

You might want to tell that to the guy who build a "plane" out of chicken feathers and crashed into the English channel off the cliffs of Dover.

Was he trying to 'evolve' flying skills by any chance?:eek:

Fanny Cradock · 27-02-2013 9:31pm

Zombrex wrote: »

You might want to tell that to the guy who build a "plane" out of chicken feathers and crashed into the English channel off the cliffs of Dover.

It is easy to say such vacuous fortune cookie things because you have the comfort of being surrounded by scientists who work day in and day out making sure all your medicines, your machines, your computers, your cars etc work as expected.

That gives you the freedom to believe any nonsense you want, and say there is more to life than empirical evidence.

It frankly doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, and as such it doesn't matter if you can support your beliefs, because you have the privilege and comfort of being surrounded by people for who it does matter, and you get your toaster from them rather than building your own, you get your car from them rather than building your own, you get your medicines from them rather than building your own.

I'm curious, Zombrex, can you empirically demonstrate that the only type of evidence is empirical evidence?

Fanny Cradock · 27-02-2013 9:33pm

lazygal wrote: »

The notion of god was something I fell for as an impressionable child. I don't blame my parents, sure doing the Irish Catholic thing was the norm. I just realized in secondary school how silly the idea of a man in the sky keeping tabs on me at all times while never showing his face was, and I grew out of believing in any sort of God. Haven't been punished so far. Planning on educating our children that some people fall for the man in the sky stuff but not our family.

Funnily enough I also reject the notion of a man up in the sky. I know many Chrsitains who do.

J C · 27-02-2013 9:35pm

philologos wrote: »

By the by, I don't agree that theistic evolutionists are deists. Christians who are theistic evolution don't believe that God did a runner, and they believe that God is living and active in creation.

... there is a continuum of Theistic Evolutionist belief positions right out to God 'lighting the fuse' at the Big Bang ... and Natural Laws taking it from there ...
... I agree that people at this extreme end of the belief continuum, probably wouldn't claim to be Christians at all ... but they are Theists ... and Deists.

J C · 27-02-2013 9:42pm

Zombrex wrote: »

It is easy to say such vacuous fortune cookie things because you have the comfort of being surrounded by scientists who work day in and day out making sure all your medicines, your machines, your computers, your cars etc work as expected.

I accept your thanks ... on behalf of my fellow scientists and myself who do indeed work very hard ... but we're well paid for our work ... and we probably don't work any harder on average than a whole host of other ... equally essential workers within our communities.:)

J C · 27-02-2013 9:48pm

Zombrex wrote: »

You can enjoy the beauty of nature all you like, what I don't get is why you feel the need to enjoy the beauty of nature while asserting God exists.

... because He does exist ... and He Created it all ... and He is the only One who can Save us.

Fanny Cradock · 27-02-2013 11:05pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm curious, Zombrex, can you empirically demonstrate that the only type of evidence is empirical evidence?

That's not a trick question, btw.

Zombrex · 28-02-2013 11:29am

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm curious, Zombrex, can you empirically demonstrate that the only type of evidence is empirical evidence?

I imagine you think that is some sort of gotcha, but yes you actually can. An example would be one of my common sayings in this forum, 1 theory of electromagnetism 40,000 religions.

Do you guys honestly think scientists restrict themselves to empirical measurement just because? No the do it because a few thousand years of human thought has done to the conclusion that it is the only reliable way to gather evidence. If there were better ways, or ways that were just as reliable science would use them too.

It is empirically demonstratable that non-empirical evidence is either wrong as much as it is right or in the case where you cannot tell it is wrong, fails to provide confidence in a belief across the board.

I'm curious myself Fanny, why do you think it necessary to rely on empirical measurement in some areas but not others.

I imagine you are a Christian because of something along the lines of it makes sense to you. Would you be happy if the engineers building a bridge worked on the same principle? Making the bridge as the went along based on what made sense to them, rather than empirically measuring the requirements?

If you wouldn't be happy with that, because they would probably get it wrong and the bridge would collapse, why are you happy with what ever method you used to be a Christian?

Is it simple a case that you dont really know if you are right it just doesn't matter if you are wrong, a bridge is not going to fall over.

Zombrex · 28-02-2013 11:44am

tommy2bad wrote: »

For god sake, your sounding like some unfunny version of Sheldon now.
I''m so grateful to science and those that practice it for all the things you mentioned, as grateful as I am to the writers painters and composers for their contribution to the experience my life is to me.

Talk about scientism in the flesh, your constant preaching how science and only science contribute to life...?

Contribution to life, what ever that means, is not the issue. We are discussing contribution to knowledge, specifically knowledge about the true nature of reality, what exists and does exist and how things are.

You have the freedom to disregard important scientific principles in order to speculate about the existence of God, Jesus or what ever safe in the knowledge that while you are disregarding or ignoring these principles the guy building your bridge, or the doctor operating on you, or the engineer building your computer wont be. Yet you never seem to ask yourself if it is ok for you why is it not ok for him. Well cause the bridge would fall down.

It's the hypocracy I can't stand

lmaopml · 28-02-2013 1:03pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Contribution to life, what ever that means, is not the issue. We are discussing contribution to knowledge, specifically knowledge about the true nature of reality, what exists and does exist and how things are.

You have the freedom to disregard important scientific principles in order to speculate about the existence of God, Jesus or what ever safe in the knowledge that while you are disregarding or ignoring these principles the guy building your bridge, or the doctor operating on you, or the engineer building your computer wont be. Yet you never seem to ask yourself if it is ok for you why is it not ok for him. Well cause the bridge would fall down.

It's the hypocracy I can't stand

Zombrex, who said EVERYBODY in this particular case IS disregarding 'important scientific principles' ? The only person that says that happens is YOU, not he, not I, not very many people. YOU are making a judgement call on everybody that believes in God and uses a toaster -

The problem here is that YOU only value with your 'Worldview' one type of reasoning 'deductive' and YOU are the one that is disposing of a key type of reasoning, (but only when it suits) that contributes to the 'Scientific Method' and that's called 'inductive' reasoning, pattern, abstract forms and thoughts etc. - there would be no theoretical physics and multiverse interpretations of scientific data without it.

BOTH are rational types of reasoning - it's you that have limited yourself, not anybody else.

I will grant that if people start twisting or misreprenting scientific test data in order to establish their worldview, and package, rap it, and sell it as fact, than they are and should be refuted - the example you mentioned was Deepak Chopra who is a con artist imo.

However, you have NOT now, or ever shown that God cannot be known by inductive reasoning, and that a 'Creator' exists, and a beginning exists, with unbelievably massive fine tuning - and that indeed science with it's many fields has actually only 'contributed' to the understanding of the astonishing fine tuned faboulous universe we actually live in. That's a mathematic 'FACT'.

You have decided in the chance of such an existence, a Goldilocks room, and that's fine, but you don't like the idea being put back on you that 'chance' has BECOME your God and it's merely using the same logic that applies in the evidence for faith that is 'inductive' reasoning, which is patently unfair and a little dishonest of you.

Zombrex · 28-02-2013 1:40pm

lmaopml wrote: »

Zombrex, who said EVERYBODY in this particular case IS disregarding 'important scientific principles' ? The only person that says that happens is YOU, not he, not I, not very many people. YOU are making a judgement call on everybody that believes in God and uses a toaster -

The problem here is that YOU only value with your 'Worldview' one type of reasoning 'deductive' and YOU are the one that is disposing of a key type of reasoning, (but only when it suits) that contributes to the 'Scientific Method' and that's called 'inductive' reasoning, pattern, abstract forms and thoughts etc. - there would be no theoretical physics and multiverse interpretations of scientific data without it.

BOTH are rational types of reasoning - it's you that have limited yourself, not anybody else.

I will grant that if people start twisting or misreprenting scientific test data in order to establish their worldview, and package, rap it, and sell it as fact, than they are and should be refuted - the example you mentioned was Deepak Chopra who is a con artist imo.

However, you have NOT now, or ever shown that God cannot be known by inductive reasoning, and that a 'Creator' exists, and a beginning exists, with unbelievably massive fine tuning - and that indeed science with it's many fields has actually only 'contributed' to the understanding of the astonishing fine tuned faboulous universe we actually live in. That's a mathematic 'FACT'.

You have decided in the chance of such an existence, a Goldilocks room, and that's fine, but you don't like the idea being put back on you that 'chance' has BECOME your God and it's merely using the same logic that applies in the evidence for faith that is 'inductive' reasoning, which is patently unfair and a little dishonest of you.

You keep not answering the question I've put to you.

Why, if these other methods of discerning accurate information about the reality around us work just as well, does science not incorporate them?

Fanny Cradock · 28-02-2013 1:48pm

Zombrex wrote: »

I imagine you think that is some sort of gotcha, but yes you actually can. An example would be one of my common sayings in this forum, 1 theory of electromagnetism 40,000 religions.

No, I don't think it is a gotcha. That's why I ASKED A QUESTION. You obviously walk into this forum with your fists raised ready a fight. To be honest, in the past I was probably up for trading blows but not so much nowadays. I prefer to shake the dust from my sandals. So if all you can muster are mean-spirited responses such your last post then please don't expect me to respond. My sandals are awaitin' a shake.

Why I asked my question was because logical positivism - which actually employs empiricism - fell because it failed it own test. It couldn't live up to it's own standard. And despite being amongst the philosophy's chief promoters, A. J. Ayre recognised this when it was pointed out to him in a debate. Afterwards he said all philosophical systems should first pass their own standards.

I actually still don't see an answer to my question. And it is a question, not a "gotcha". So, again, and asked in honest curiosity, how do you demonstrate empirically that the only type of evidence is empirical evidence?

I'm curious myself Fanny, why do you think it necessary to rely on empirical measurement in some areas but not others.

I imagine you are a Christian because of something along the lines of it makes sense to you. Would you be happy if the engineers building a bridge worked on the same principle? Making the bridge as the went along based on what made sense to them, rather than empirically measuring the requirements?

Why ask me and then answer for me?

I'm happy to rely on empirical measurement (why are we talking about measurement now?) when it comes to aeroplanes and bridges. I never said otherwise. But empirical measurement is not in the same ballpark as your claim that empirical evidence is the only type of evidence. There are some recognised problems with the latter. For example, it is argued that logic and mathematical concepts are innate and rational intuitions.

If you wouldn't be happy with that, because they would probably get it wrong and the bridge would collapse, why are you happy with what ever method you used to be a Christian?

Is it simple a case that you dont really know if you are right it just doesn't matter if you are wrong, a bridge is not going to fall over.

I don't understand what you are saying.

lmaopml · 28-02-2013 1:59pm

Zombrex wrote: »

You keep not answering the question I've put to you.

Why, if these other methods of discerning accurate information about the reality around us work just as well, does science not incorporate them?

Very simply, because science is in search for the 'truth' of the nature of our universe, follows the leads where they go, and so it should, and so it does and has positively nothing to 'say' about God. It just gives us a better understanding and appreciation for the intricate beauty around us......and Christians CAN and do appreciate that, and can and are and always have been scientists.

God is not now, and never will be under a microscope, or telescope.

Most Christians that I know only go so far to say that there is a Creator and we can only view the beauty of the canvass which tells us something about him......It's astonishingly beautiful - They 'don't' insert the Almight God into the Universe, and they certainly don't limit him, make him small enough to fit into tiny little gaps of knowledge -

Some people 'may' do this, but then some 'people' who are scientists go around giving it gas...Everybody else just watches and then all the crash generalisations come out on both sides, which is the way of the world I guess.

Zombrex · 28-02-2013 2:24pm

lmaopml wrote: »

Very simply, because science is in search for the 'truth' of the nature of our universe, follows the leads where they go, and so it should, and so it does and has positively nothing to 'say' about God. It just gives us a better understanding and appreciation for the intricate beauty around us......and Christians CAN and do appreciate that, and can and are and always have been scientists.

God is not now, and never will be under a microscope, or telescope.

What? God's existence isn't true? Are you secretly any atheist.

Whether God exists or not is a true or false question about reality. Whether the universe was created is a true or false question about reality. Whether that creator is the Christian god is a true or false question about reality. Whether Jesus rose from the dead is a true or false question about reality.

Some how you and other Christians have decided the answers to those questions is true and you, I imagine, have confidence in that answer.

So again why can science not use this or the method you used to arrive at these conclusions, given that all science is interested in is an accurate concept of how reality really is.

If you can have confidence in the truth of these things, why can't science?

lmaopml · 28-02-2013 2:37pm

Zombrex wrote: »

What? God's existence isn't true? Are you secretly any atheist.

Whether God exists or not is a true or false question about reality. Whether the universe was created is a true or false question about reality. Whether that creator is the Christian god is a true or false question about reality. Whether Jesus rose from the dead is a true or false question about reality.

Some how you and other Christians have decided the answers to those questions is true and you, I imagine, have confidence in that answer.

So again why can science not use this or the method you used to arrive at these conclusions, given that all science is interested in is an accurate concept of how reality really is.

Edit: And just to clarify 'Science' doesn't use anything, it's not a 'thing' in and of itself, it's a LOT of diverse people working together in order to seek truth. A method, a tool, and it's for everybody to get excited about.

If you can have confidence in the truth of these things, why can't science?

You really don't get it. Science 'DOES' use that kind of thought, people CAN think in the abstract, something CAN be both ON and OFF, and not only in the binary, otherwise there would be no progress using the 'Scentific' Method. Patterns, spacial awareness, the abstract, the math, what's observable lead to research etc. that leads to more research....

It's just that your particular way of rationalising your 'worldview' as 'above' anothers, is limited to empirical evidence by deduction - which is fine, you can do that if you want to and it will serve a purpose no doubt for you, but you cannot demonstrate without defeating yourself that your idea of how knowledge is garnered is limited to your extremely narrow philosophy - and that's what it is, it's a philosophy, a binary one.

The 'God' that you often refute is a strawman, and NOT the one that Christians believe in for very good reasons, because they followed the trail, they searched, they observed, they followed that worldview and are convinced - you are just going to have to get over it I think and use the bridges the engineers built.

Zombrex · 28-02-2013 3:00pm

lmaopml wrote: »

You really don't get it. Science 'DOES' use that kind of thought, people CAN think in the abstract, something CAN be both ON and OFF, and not only in the binary, otherwise there would be no progress using the 'Scentific' Method. Patterns, spacial awareness, the abstract, the math, what's observable lead to research etc. that leads to more research....

I'm not sure if you don't understand the question or you are just ignoring it. I imagine it is the latter.

If you can know with confidence that God exists and is how Christianity claims, why can science not have the same confidence in this knowledge.

Why is God not part of the model attempting to describe everything we know about what exists. If you can know God exists and is God rather than say Zeus or Baal, why is that knowledge part of the grand collection of scientific knowledge.

How can you know this with confidence, but the same methods you used to know this cannot be used in science.

You know he exists. All the Christians here know he exists. Should he not be included in a scientific list of the things we know exist? Science knows electrons exist. It knows pulsars exist. God is not found in this list, but you know he exists.

You have flip flopped from saying science is concerned with truth so it has nothing to say about God, to saying a moment ago that science does use all these thing (which isn't true)

I imagine you are just knee jerking out responses without thinking properly about what you are being asked. To save me having to ask again consider the question properly this time. Science is a method for discovering knowledge about the reality around us, knowledge we can have confidence in. You believe God exists, that is knowledge and you have confidence in it. Yet for some reason science has nothing about God in it. If you can be confident in this knowledge why is that the case?

lmaopml · 28-02-2013 3:16pm

One more time.

Science doesn't make any claims whatsoever in relation to God.

Secondly, Science is not a 'thing' or a 'person' that says something - it's a method a tool for understanding the nature of the universe, a field of discovery, nobody owns it, they use it to find out information.

Thirdly, the 'people' that make up the scientific community have 'worldviews' that they have arrived at using their 'reason', and they are not all Atheists like your good self.

Fourthly the methods for using our 'reason' that ALL of these people use, including yourself, are used both in relation to discovery when using a scientific method as they are in arriving at our 'worldviews'.

Your worldview seems to be an odd type of scientism - that almost personifies it in some strange God like fashion that needs to be defended from the strawman God that you have created in your head. Which quite frankly I find abrasive as it is odd, it's like Spock gone wrong with a keyboard.

Zombrex · 28-02-2013 3:27pm

lmaopml wrote: »

One more time.

Science doesn't make any claims whatsoever in relation to God.

Secondly, Science is not a 'thing' or a 'person' that says something - it's a method a tool for understanding the nature of the universe, a field of discovery, nobody owns it, they use it to find out information.

Thirdly, the 'people' that make up the scientific community have 'worldviews' that they have arrived at using their 'reason', and they are not all Atheists like your good self.

Fourthly the methods for using our 'reason' that ALL of these people use, including yourself, are used both in relation to discovery when using a scientific method as they are in arriving at our 'worldviews'.

Your worldview seems to be an odd type of scientism - that almost personifies it in some strange God like fashion that needs to be defended from the strawman God that you have created in your head. Which quite frankly I find abrasive as it is odd, it's like Spock gone wrong with a keyboard.

Again you ignore the question.

Let me put it to you in a way hopefully you cannot avoid.

In science there is a set of things we are confident exist, based on are collective scientific knowledge.

God is not found in that. God appears no where in a list of things we thing exist based on scientific discovery.

But you know he exists. Millions of Christians know he exists. Many of them are scientists.

You all know he exists. So why is he not found in scientific lists of things that exist.

Just explain that, rather than waffling on about worldviews.

nagirrac · 28-02-2013 3:40pm

The answer to your question is surprisingly simple zombrex.

Science can only examine what it can observe, it is limited to the observed reality we can measure with our senses and our instruments.

All the major religions and those who have spiritual beliefs but belong to no religion believe that God exists outside of this observed reality. Nobody truly understands what this "outside" reality is, it's in your "I don't know" category.

lmaopml · 28-02-2013 3:40pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Again you ignore the question.

Let me put it to you in a way hopefully you cannot avoid.

In science there is a set of things we are confident exist, based on are collective scientific knowledge.

God is not found in that. God appears no where in a list of things we thing exist based on scientific discovery.

But you know he exists. Millions of Christians know he exists. Many of them are scientists.

You all know he exists. So why is he not found in scientific lists of things that exist.

Just explain that, rather than waffling on about worldviews.

Um, 'lists' of things...where is this 'list' of things? Is your philosophy on it too as the only way of arriving at any knowledge is the Zombrex way? I'd love to see that list.

You don't get to tell God what to do.

You've been debating Christians long enough, at least twenty keyboards later, for to at least realise that we can't make him 'materialise' for you.

You see Zombrex, the God I believe in as Christian never said that he would pop up under your microscope one day and say 'Hi' - However, one way he did claim to be obvious to anybody who has eyes, is in his creation and it's awesome understandablility, reasonableness and beauty. This is his work, and it's beautiful - evolution is beautiful.

So therefore, you won't find God where you are looking for him....the one you suppose is sitting somewhere on a fluffy clowd, the only thing you will find is his handiwork, and you've decided to reject the idea totally that there is an author at all, which is your prerogative.

- but you don't get to stifle 'thought', because you don't own it, and you haven't got the monopoly, and you don't own science either. It's a group of 'people' studying, not machines.

marienbad · 28-02-2013 4:28pm

nagirrac wrote: »

The answer to your question is surprisingly simple zombrex.

Science can only examine what it can observe, it is limited to the observed reality we can measure with our senses and our instruments.

All the major religions and those who have spiritual beliefs but belong to no religion believe that God exists outside of this observed reality. Nobody truly understands what this "outside" reality is, it's in your "I don't know" category.

and that is the differenc betwen a fact and faith , correct ? If one could prove the existance of God then it would be taught in science class and history class, correct ?

But since it can't be it is taught in philosophy religion classes etc. Just like art or poetry appreciation in their relevant classes ?

Zombrex · 28-02-2013 4:31pm

lmaopml wrote: »

Um, 'lists' of things...where is this 'list' of things? Is your philosophy on it too as the only way of arriving at any knowledge is the Zombrex way? I'd love to see that list.

It is contained within all the current scientific theories. You know this, stop trying to stall.

lmaopml wrote: »

You don't get to tell God what to do.

Telling God what to do is irrelevant to the question I asked you. I don't tell electrons what to do, we can still gain information about their existences using science.

Why is science not using your methods to gain information about God, even just that he exists and is as Christians claim. If it is possible for you to know this and have confidence in this knowledge, why can scientists not use your methods to gain this information and incorporate it into the theory of everything (ie the physical theories that describe all known elements of reality, ie everything that exists)

lmaopml wrote: »

You've been debating Christians long enough, at least twenty keyboards later, for to at least realise that we can't make him 'materialise' for you.

Well yes, because it seems to take an age to get a straight answer out of a Christian.

Surely you know by the lengths you go to avoid answering these questions, that there is some valid point being made here.

lmaopml wrote: »

You see Zombrex, the God I believe in as Christian never said that he would pop up under your microscope one day and say 'Hi'

And yet some how you know he exists, and you have confidence in that knowledge.

How do you know he exists, and why can science not use the method you used in order to also have confidence in his existences, or the existence of anything else for that matter.

I've asked that about 10 times now, and you have never answered it. Surely that must tell you something.

lmaopml wrote: »

However, one way he did claim to be obvious to anybody who has eyes, is in his creation and it's awesome understandablility, reasonableness and beauty. This is his work, and it's beautiful - evolution is beautiful.

Ok, why does science not use that, the obviousness of nature? Why are scientists across the world not using the obvious of nature to draw conclusions about how reality is, conclusions that they can be confident in?

lmaopml wrote: »

So therefore, you won't find God where you are looking for him

Science will look where ever there is an ability to gain confident knowledge about the truth of reality. If they are looking in the wrong place, just tell them and me where to look in order to gain further knowledge, and explain how if science looks there it can continue to have the same confidence in the conclusions it draws as it always has.

lmaopml wrote: »

- but you don't get to stifle 'thought', because you don't own it, and you haven't got the monopoly, and you don't own science either. It's a group of 'people' studying, not machines.

Very true. But again "God exists and is X" is not found in any scientific theory or list of parts of reality that science knows exists.

Why is that?

Zombrex · 28-02-2013 4:36pm

nagirrac wrote: »

Science can only examine what it can observe, it is limited to the observed reality we can measure with our senses and our instruments.

Why?

Science is simply a methodology for discovering knowledge about reality and having confidence in that knowledge.

If believers such as lmaopml are able to know God exists, and have confidence in that knowledge, why is science not also able to do the same and know with confidence that God exists, and is as he is. Or use this methodology to discover other knowable information about reality?

nagirrac wrote: »

All the major religions and those who have spiritual beliefs but belong to no religion believe that God exists outside of this observed reality. Nobody truly understands what this "outside" reality is, it's in your "I don't know" category.

If they don't know, why do they believe they possess this knowledge, and confidently hold to it?

lmaopml · 28-02-2013 5:14pm

Zombrex wrote: »

It is contained within all the current scientific theories. You know this, stop trying to stall.

Within all scientific theories? So there's a list in there somewhere that says something about God eh?

I don't think so Zombrex.

Telling God what to do is irrelevant to the question I asked you.

It is relevant - You have decided to prove God doesn't exist, a strawman version of him that should be on a list somewhere abouts, and there is only 'your' way of thinking that is the right way, and you are going to somehow set us free with this superior worldview you have - Yet, yet.....science hasn't got anything to say about what you do or do not think about God.

I don't tell electrons what to do, we can still gain information about their existences using science.

Your dead right you don't. We just study behaviour....

Why is science not using your methods to gain information about God, even just that he exists and is as Christians claim. If it is possible for you to know this and have confidence in this knowledge, why can scientists not use your methods to gain this information and incorporate it into the theory of everything (ie the physical theories that describe all known elements of reality, ie everything that exists)

Again with the personification of science. Science is made up of people who ARE theists Zombrex, and they can function quite rationally without restricting themselves to your narrow philosophy. By all means go ahead, but I don't have to think it's clever do I?

Well yes, because it seems to take an age to get a straight answer out of a Christian.

No, you DID get a straight answer, and you choose to ignore it. Also, Fanny asked you a straight question which you danced around like a hot coal - I don't blame people dusting their shoes, when you don't hold your own philosophy to your own standards.

Surely you know by the lengths you go to avoid answering these questions, that there is some valid point being made here.

Yes, of course that you've spent ten odd years trying to refute that God exists based on science that says nothing about him. Nice reasoning.

And yet some how you know he exists, and you have confidence in that knowledge.

I do, I have confidence, I have faith. You don't. Simples.

How do you know he exists, and why can science not use the method you used in order to also have confidence in his existences, or the existence of anything else for that matter.

What is it with you and personifying science? Apart from that weirdness - people who work in various areas of science DO use their reason in all sorts of ways. It's the reason why it can seem like their are so many dogmas in it - you'll have various different physicists for example who may hold on to a theory and persue it, put their 'faith' in it for a whole lifetime. I'm not saying that they won't be equally delighted if it's proven false, but their 'reason' is because they have a confidence.....

Ok, why does science not use that, the obviousness of nature? Why are scientists across the world not using the obvious of nature to draw conclusions about how reality is, conclusions that they can be confident in?

That's pretty stupid Zombrex, and it's NOT what I said either.

Science will look where ever there is an ability to gain confident knowledge about the truth of reality. If they are looking in the wrong place, just tell them and me where to look in order to gain further knowledge, and explain how if science looks there it can continue to have the same confidence in the conclusions it draws as it always has.

Tell Science and you? You do realise how weird that sounds?
Perhaps sending up smoke signals to you might work better at communicating that people doing science don't do it to prove or disprove God.

Very true. But again "God exists and is X" is not found in any scientific theory or list of parts of reality that science knows exists.

Why is that?

Because science is not a person Zombrex. It's a tool to study nature and a group of people with various different worldviews, some Christian, some not. No biggy.

nagirrac · 28-02-2013 5:22pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Science is simply a methodology for discovering knowledge about reality and having confidence in that knowledge.

If believers such as lmaopml are able to know God exists, and have confidence in that knowledge, why is science not also able to do the same and know with confidence that God exists, and is as he is. Or use this methodology to discover other knowable information about reality?

I agree that science is a methodology for discovering knowledge about reality, I just wish more scientists would accept what their own science has been telling them about our reality since 1925.

There are two aspects to knowledge, the physical and the mental; what we observe and measure, and the mental processes we apply to our observations.

Theists and deists believe that our observed reality is either (a) a subset of a larger reality, or (b) an approximation of a larger reality. Atheists believe that such talk is woo and all that exists is the materialistic world of Newton's solid objects. Unfortunately for the latter science has been suggesting since 1925 and demonstrating with more and more compelling evidence that our observed material reality is not reality.

I would urge you to read the attached short articles by Richard Conn Henry who is certainly not a woo practioner. We live in a mental universe zombrex, there is no mind independent reality out there.

http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html

http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf

tommy2bad · 28-02-2013 5:45pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Contribution to life, what ever that means, is not the issue. We are discussing contribution to knowledge, specifically knowledge about the true nature of reality, what exists and does exist and how things are.

You have the freedom to disregard important scientific principles in order to speculate about the existence of God, Jesus or what ever safe in the knowledge that while you are disregarding or ignoring these principles the guy building your bridge, or the doctor operating on you, or the engineer building your computer wont be. Yet you never seem to ask yourself if it is ok for you why is it not ok for him. Well cause the bridge would fall down.

It's the hypocracy I can't stand

Nice of you to grant that!
What hypocrisy? I might be the guy building the bridge, I promise I wont disregard engineering principals when doing so.
Sorry but are you actually saying that anything not included in your set of science facts is to be disregarded? WTF? Get real, some of us want to live not just function and if you don't get that then I feel sorry for you.

Zombrex · 28-02-2013 7:28pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Nice of you to grant that!
What hypocrisy? I might be the guy building the bridge, I promise I wont disregard engineering principals when doing so.
Sorry but are you actually saying that anything not included in your set of science facts is to be disregarded? WTF? Get real, some of us want to live not just function and if you don't get that then I feel sorry for you.

I am, but then so did you just now.

Why do you promise to stick to scientific principles when making the bridge if these other principles of yours that allow you to know things with confidence work just as well at determine accurately details of our world.

Or is it the case that actually they don't? And if you attempted to gain knowledge via these methods about say a bridge rather than God, you would have so little confidence in the accuracy of that knowledge that you would not risk the bridge or the people on it?

J C · 28-02-2013 7:38pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Why do you promise to stick to scientific principles when making the bridge if these other principles of yours that allow you to know things with confidence work just as well at determine accurately details of our world.

Or is it the case that actually they don't? And if you attempted to gain knowledge via these methods about say a bridge rather than God, you would have so little confidence in the accuracy of that knowledge that you would not risk the bridge or the people on it?

I can be just as confident that somebody loves me ... as I can about a bridge staying up ... they are simply two different types of knowledge.

... and I'd take eternal love any day ... instead of a cold steel bridge that will fall down in a few years unless very significant effort is expended on its maintenance.

The love of a beautiful loyal Christian woman is only exceeded by our loving Creator God Jesus Christ ... and I'd trade anything that the material World has to offer for both.

The fallacy of focusing on the material world to the exclusion of the spirit is summarised in the rhetorical question posed by Jesus Christ:-
What profit a man if he gain the whole world ... but suffer the loss of his soul?

... the answer is very obvious!!!

Zombrex · 28-02-2013 7:56pm

lmaopml wrote: »

Within all scientific theories? So there's a list in there somewhere that says something about God eh?

I don't think so Zombrex.

Yes that is precisely the point. In the set of all things science currently considers to exist, from bacteria to black holes, not a word about God.

Why is that if it is possible to accurately know God exists and have confidence in that knowledge?

It is relevant - You have decided to prove God doesn't exist, a strawman version of him that should be on a list somewhere abouts, and there is only 'your' way of thinking that is the right way, and you are going to somehow set us free with this superior worldview you have - Yet, yet.....science hasn't got anything to say about what you do or do not think about God.

I didn't ask you anything about what I believe. You are still ignoring the question.

Again with the personification of science. Science is made up of people who ARE theists Zombrex, and they can function quite rationally without restricting themselves to your narrow philosophy. By all means go ahead, but I don't have to think it's clever do I?

So why, if they can know with confidence the existence of God, is God not found in any theory or scientific set of things which are considered scientifically to exist?

No, you DID get a straight answer, and you choose to ignore it. Also, Fanny asked you a straight question which you danced around like a hot coal - I don't blame people dusting their shoes, when you don't hold your own philosophy to your own standards.

I did not get an answer and you know it. I asked a straight forward question, about 7 times now, and you instead dance around it.

How do you not know what that means?

Yes, of course that you've spent ten odd years trying to refute that God exists based on science that says nothing about him. Nice reasoning.

Why does science say nothing about him if you can confidently know he exists and confidential know things about him.

Because science is not a person Zombrex. It's a tool to study nature and a group of people with various different worldviews, some Christian, some not. No biggy.

You said science has nothing to say about God, so this silliness that you don't understand what I am referring to when I say that is rather childish. More stalling and avoiding.

You know exactly what I mean, and surely you also know when you refuse to answer the question.

Since you clear are never going to ill answer it for you.

Science says nothing about God because based on scientific principles it cannot discover anything about God that one can have any confidence in.

There is no method to gain confident knowledge about God, if there was it would be part of the scientific method already. Science does not limited itself to particular areas and methods out of fun, it does this because it is the only way we, humans, can arrive at knowledge we can have confidence in.

You know this, you just don't want to admit it to me. Just remember it the next time you state there are other ways to know things, and state why, if they work, are they not part of the scientific method.

tommy2bad · 28-02-2013 8:17pm

Zombrex wrote: »

I am, but then so did you just now.

Why do you promise to stick to scientific principles when making the bridge if these other principles of yours that allow you to know things with confidence work just as well at determine accurately details of our world.

Or is it the case that actually they don't? And if you attempted to gain knowledge via these methods about say a bridge rather than God, you would have so little confidence in the accuracy of that knowledge that you would not risk the bridge or the people on it?

Ahh, I think I'm getting your point now, or at least hope I am.
I use scientific principals when dealing with physics and theological principals when dealing with metaphysics, see how it works? they are different things not unrelated but still different, they compliment not contradict each other.
Balance and checks, bit like science in a way

Zombrex · 28-02-2013 9:08pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Ahh, I think I'm getting your point now, or at least hope I am.
I use scientific principals when dealing with physics and theological principals when dealing with metaphysics, see how it works?

How is God's existence a metaphysical question. God either exists or he doesn't exist. God is either the Christian notion of God, some other notion of a god, or doesn't exist at all.

The question of "Does God exist" is no different to "Do electrons exist", or "Does the illuminous ether exist". Not that these things are the same type of things, but the question of their existence (which is either true or false), is the same. God either exists and this is a fact of reality, or he doesn't exist, and this is also a fact of reality. The question at hand is how do you have confidence in one belief rather than the other, and why does that method of confidence not apply when turned to a question of whether electrons exist, or anything else.

tommy2bad · 28-02-2013 9:24pm

Zombrex wrote: »

How is God's existence a metaphysical question. God either exists or he doesn't exist. God is either the Christian notion of God, some other notion of a god, or doesn't exist at all.

The question of "Does God exist" is no different to "Do electrons exist", or "Does the illuminous ether exist". Not that these things are the same type of things, but the question of their existence (which is either true or false), is the same. God either exists and this is a fact of reality, or he doesn't exist, and this is also a fact of reality. The question at hand is how do you have confidence in one belief rather than the other, and why does that method of confidence not apply when turned to a question of whether electrons exist, or anything else.

Narrow definition of exists!, remember one time electrons didn't exist by your arrow definition as their was no evidence of them.
We call it faith for a reason, in case you hadn't noticed.

J C · 28-02-2013 9:46pm

Zombrex wrote: »

How is God's existence a metaphysical question. God either exists or he doesn't exist. God is either the Christian notion of God, some other notion of a god, or doesn't exist at all.

God's existence is both a physical and a metaphysical question.

Metaphysical and virtual phenomena like Intelligence, personality and Spirit can have definite physical manifestations and effects ... and God's primary physical effects are seen in the Universe and the living systems that He Created.
The Bible confirms this truth ... that the physical works of God can be seen ... and God's wrath will be visited upon those who deliberately deny this obvious reality because of their deep personal sin.

Romans 1:18-25

New International Version (NIV)

God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Zombrex · 28-02-2013 10:13pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Narrow definition of exists!

Really? What would be a "wider" definition of "exists".

tommy2bad wrote: »

, remember one time electrons didn't exist by your arrow definition as their was no evidence of them.

Er, what? When did I ever say electrons didn't exist because there was no evidence of them?

You seem to be really missing the point here tommy. "God" (the Christian notion of a god) is either something that does exist or doesn't exist. If he does exist then he exists. If he doesn't exist then the concept is just something made up by humans.

I can't really tell if you care all that much which of those statements is true. You seem to subscribe to the notion that it doesn't matter if the belief is actually a true representation of reality or not, what matters is that it brings people happiness.

I would imagine you wouldn't take such a view for something that actually has consequences, ie you wouldn't care how happy it made some engineers that they believed the bridge would stay up, what actually mattered is if the bridge will or won't stay up. You wouldn't care about hurting the feelings of some engineers by pointing out that they actually don't know the bridge will stay up.

tommy2bad wrote: »

We call it faith for a reason, in case you hadn't noticed.

What does that mean? Do you have faith that bridges hold up and that your plane will fly. Or would you rather have confidence, which I personally fine much more valuable than faith for anything that matters.

This seems to go back to the point I made earlier, that really it doesn't matter if what you believe is true or not. A bridge won't fall down, a plane won't fall out of the sky, if you are wrong. Therefore your belief doesn't require confidence.

You can appreciate I hope that this is not in anyway satisfactory for any question that actually matters.

nagirrac · 01-03-2013 1:26am

Zombrex wrote: »

Er, what? When did I ever say electrons didn't exist because there was no evidence of them?

You can appreciate I hope that this is not in anyway satisfactory for any question that actually matters.

I imagine what he means is that there are things we can't observe today but that may be part of reality. I would use the example of electromagnetic radiation, we had no idea that such a thing existed up to the 19th century, and had no direct evidence for it and no ability to measure it until the right thought came along in someone's mind to develop a means to detect it. Then a lot of things suddenly made more sense, like light for example. Look how far we've ran with that one idea, radio, TV, cell phones, the Internet, the cloud, etc.

Out of curiosity, why would whether God exists or not be a question that matters much to an atheist?

Zombrex · 01-03-2013 9:45am

nagirrac wrote: »

Out of curiosity, why would whether God exists or not be a question that matters much to an atheist?

Most atheists I know care about accurately discerning reality, rather than accepting concepts because they are pleasing.

lmaopml · 01-03-2013 10:21am

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes that is precisely the point. In the set of all things science currently considers to exist, from bacteria to black holes, not a word about God.

Why is that if it is possible to accurately know God exists and have confidence in that knowledge?

I didn't ask you anything about what I believe. You are still ignoring the question.

So why, if they can know with confidence the existence of God, is God not found in any theory or scientific set of things which are considered scientifically to exist?

I did not get an answer and you know it. I asked a straight forward question, about 7 times now, and you instead dance around it.

How do you not know what that means?

Why does science say nothing about him if you can confidently know he exists and confidential know things about him.

You said science has nothing to say about God, so this silliness that you don't understand what I am referring to when I say that is rather childish. More stalling and avoiding.

You know exactly what I mean, and surely you also know when you refuse to answer the question.

Funny.

Since you clear are never going to ill answer it for you.

Ah sure why break a great tradition, you've become quite a dab hand at this waffle - answering yourself and believing yourself, no wonder you agree with you so much, it's like a one sided conversation, it must be very comforting for you.

Science says nothing about God because based on scientific principles it cannot discover anything about God that one can have any confidence in.

Er, yep, that's what I said - except 'Science' is not what you think it is......it's a bunch of people with a disciplin seeking knowledge, who may or may not be Christians.

There is no method to gain confident knowledge about God, if there was it would be part of the scientific method already. Science does not limited itself to particular areas and methods out of fun, it does this because it is the only way we, humans, can arrive at knowledge we can have confidence in.

Zombrex, you and I both know that within the many and varied fields that they are in the business of seeking knowledge about the 'Natural' world. The clue is in 'Natural'. That doesn't negate that they can and often times do use the same reason to have confidence in their faith that there is indeed a God - and they do, obviously - using the same brain, reason, rational they used when having confidence in anything else.

There is a discipline however, that I know is quite different in the lab.

You know this, you just don't want to admit it to me. Just remember it the next time you state there are other ways to know things, and state why, if they work, are they not part of the scientific method.

Where did I say there are 'other' ways to know things? People examine the evidence and decide for themselves......just like you reject the idea completely that God exists, others don't, they are convinced, they have faith!

I said people who are members of the scientific community don't suddenly go daft just because they have faith in God. You seem to believe that this reductionist philosophy of yours is a 'way of life' or should be. When one gets their nose so stuck in the small things in the scientific world it's often times very difficult to stand back and see a tapestry, but it's not impossible, and neither is the scientific method a 'creed' to live by. It's a discipline no more no less despite the fact that you would like to be chief of the thought police, you aren't - and again, science is not a 'person'.

You take it very personally, but then I don't think it's really God that annoys you, it's usually the morality attached that annoys most atheists in my experience. The sense of what is right or wrong really pulls your triggers.

Brian Shanahan · 01-03-2013 10:24am

tommy2bad wrote: »

I use scientific principals when dealing with physics and theological principals when dealing with metaphysics, see how it works?

So you use proper inquiry (sci meth) for reality (physics) and use your prejudices (theology) for stuff you're not sure is real (metaphysics)?

Glad to see that you finally admit it.

tommy2bad · 01-03-2013 10:27am

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So you use proper inquiry (sci meth) for reality (physics) and use your prejudices (theology) for stuff you're not sure is real (metaphysics)?

Glad to see that you finally admit it.

One way of looking at it, I suppose. Good thing you don't let your prejudices influence your thinking

tommy2bad · 01-03-2013 10:33am

Zombrex wrote: »

Really? What would be a "wider" definition of "exists".

Er, what? When did I ever say electrons didn't exist because there was no evidence of them?

You seem to be really missing the point here tommy. "God" (the Christian notion of a god) is either something that does exist or doesn't exist. If he does exist then he exists. If he doesn't exist then the concept is just something made up by humans.

I can't really tell if you care all that much which of those statements is true. You seem to subscribe to the notion that it doesn't matter if the belief is actually a true representation of reality or not, what matters is that it brings people happiness.

I would imagine you wouldn't take such a view for something that actually has consequences, ie you wouldn't care how happy it made some engineers that they believed the bridge would stay up, what actually mattered is if the bridge will or won't stay up. You wouldn't care about hurting the feelings of some engineers by pointing out that they actually don't know the bridge will stay up.

What does that mean? Do you have faith that bridges hold up and that your plane will fly. Or would you rather have confidence, which I personally fine much more valuable than faith for anything that matters.

This seems to go back to the point I made earlier, that really it doesn't matter if what you believe is true or not. A bridge won't fall down, a plane won't fall out of the sky, if you are wrong. Therefore your belief doesn't require confidence.

You can appreciate I hope that this is not in anyway satisfactory for any question that actually matters.

The Christian god doesn't exist, God exists and Christians have a set of beliefs about Him, A wide range of beliefs btw, from vague, hand wavie mysticism to hard line fundamentalism. Which one has so offended you that you seen to be certain He doesn't exist.
I take the view that I don't believe he doesn't exist.

I care about what works in its relevant place, why can't you get that?

Brian Shanahan · 01-03-2013 10:42am

J C wrote: »

New International Version (NIV)

God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

So if "gods wrath" is against the sinful, why does it always strike down against the innocent?

Zombrex wrote: »

Really? What would be a "wider" definition of "exists".

Probably something along the lines of "things with an existence in reality and things with no existence in reality."

Brian Shanahan · 01-03-2013 10:47am

tommy2bad wrote: »

One way of looking at it, I suppose. Good thing you don't let your prejudices influence your thinking

It is the only way of looking at it.

You see the use of the scientific method is the application of evidence to a theory to see if the theory fits reality, while theology is the ignoring of any evidence which does not fit the theory, because the theory is the "truth" as revealed to us by authority figures and therefore cannot be questioned (in that way theologians act very much in the same way as most economists).

The difference is looking at reality and figuring out the hows and whys, and coming up with a notion and trying to fit reality within that notion, no matter how bad the fit is.

tommy2bad · 01-03-2013 12:34pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

It is the only way of looking at it.
IYNSHO
You see the use of the scientific method is the application of evidence to a theory to see if the theory fits reality, while theology is the ignoring of any evidence which does not fit the theory, because the theory is the "truth" as revealed to us by authority figures and therefore cannot be questioned (in that way theologians act very much in the same way as most economists).
No it's not, that may be your understanding but you are misinformed
The difference is looking at reality and figuring out the hows and whys, and coming up with a notion and trying to fit reality within that notion, no matter how bad the fit is.

No, again you are misrepresenting theology. It's not fitting facts to a theory as opposed to fitting a theory to facts. It is in fact, the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and its influences and of the nature of religious truths. While you may criticizes the principal of rational study of something for which their is no empirical evidence but to mischaracterize it is dishonest.

Brian Shanahan · 01-03-2013 1:09pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

No, again you are misrepresenting theology. It's not fitting facts to a theory as opposed to fitting a theory to facts. It is in fact, the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and its influences and of the nature of religious truths. While you may criticizes the principal of rational study of something for which their is no empirical evidence but to mischaracterize it is dishonest.

Theology's answer to lightning:
"goddidit".
Theology's answer to famine:
"goddidit".
Theology's answer to the rainbow:
"goddidit".
Theology's answer to Hitler killing 6m Jews, Atheists, Homosexuals, Socialists, Gypsies & dissenting Christians:
"It's all part of our ever-loving god's inscrutable plan, and is for a greater good."

If that isn't fitting facts to theory, then I am right now making sweet, sweet love to Osama bin Laden's corpse.

Fanny Cradock · 01-03-2013 1:19pm

Why would we say that there is no empirical evidence for God? For example, if one is of the opinion that the evidence for a particular miracle claim is reliable then that surely qualifies as evidence for an interventionist God.

Fanny Cradock · 01-03-2013 1:24pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Theology's answer to lightning:
"goddidit".
Theology's answer to famine:
"goddidit".
Theology's answer to the rainbow:
"goddidit".
Theology's answer to Hitler killing 6m Jews, Atheists, Homosexuals, Socialists, Gypsies & dissenting Christians:
"It's all part of our ever-loving god's inscrutable plan, and is for a greater

Quite aside from the fact that there isn't a single theological voice, what makes you think that is what theologians are saying?

lmaopml · 01-03-2013 2:10pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why would we say that there is no empirical evidence for God? For example, if one is of the opinion that the evidence for a particular miracle claim is reliable then that surely qualifies as evidence for an interventionist God.

For my own part, I accept the evidence for the empirical claim that there is a God. I'm convinced - I just think others aren't convinced and either never examined or never really thought about it, and some just reject out straight. There is a gap to be crossed though and a search I think is necessary for some...

Seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you, ask and it will be given to you...etc. ( Some challenge )

So, I think we do use our reason to examine evidence, despite claims to the contrary, in order to establish a firm foundation where we put our faith. Others will unfortunately reject the truth and evidence of that claim, and some will never even engage with it for their own reasons.

marienbad · 01-03-2013 2:54pm

lmaopml wrote: »

For my own part, I accept the evidence for the empirical claim that there is a God. I'm convinced - I just think others aren't convinced and either never examined or never really thought about it, and some just reject out straight. There is a gap to be crossed though and a search I think is necessary for some...

Seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you, ask and it will be given to you...etc. ( Some challenge )

So, I think we do use our reason to examine evidence, despite claims to the contrary, in order to establish a firm foundation where we put our faith. Others will unfortunately reject the truth and evidence of that claim, and some will never even engage with it for their own reasons.

If the empirical evidence was convincing everyone would believe it , just as we do with gravity .

And that is before we even get to the question of which God and why.

lazygal · 01-03-2013 3:05pm

lmaopml wrote: »

For my own part, I accept the evidence for the empirical claim that there is a God. I'm convinced - I just think others aren't convinced and either never examined or never really thought about it, and some just reject out straight. There is a gap to be crossed though and a search I think is necessary for some...

Seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you, ask and it will be given to you...etc. ( Some challenge )

So, I think we do use our reason to examine evidence, despite claims to the contrary, in order to establish a firm foundation where we put our faith. Others will unfortunately reject the truth and evidence of that claim, and some will never even engage with it for their own reasons.

What empirical evidence to which you refer proves the god in which you believe exists?

Brian Shanahan · 01-03-2013 3:17pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Quite aside from the fact that there isn't a single theological voice, what makes you think that is what theologians are saying?

Because that is the sole idea from theistic belief? Because I can and do read? Because theology is a "discipline" which has no basis in fact?

Take your pick.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments