Why can't science and God co-exist?

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Why can't science and God co-exist?

I see a lot of people say that science and God can't co-exist.

Why not?


gregfl
Posts: 170
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: I see

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I see a lot of people say that science and God can't co-exist.

Why not?

 

You've never seen me make that claim.  All types of science can exist, like the theory of evolution, without excluding god.  The problem comes when you try to scientifically include god in a theory when there is no tangible evidence for god.

 

So, sure...one can be a astronomer and believe in god.  Why not?   However, how can one be an objective astronomer and take a literal interpretation of genesis?


So, it is not totally unproblematic..but the two can co exist .

 

I have to run...be back in 4 hours.


Peace.

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Pineapple, it's a matter of

Pineapple, it's a matter of definitions.

If you give a coherent definition of god, where science does not rule out its existence, then they can coexist.

Also, as has been pointed out, many sciences don't really include anything that goes against the idea of a god.

Here, though, is the ultimately damning bit of data. If there is a god, and it really can go traipsing about the universe breaking all the laws of the universe at will, then we really DO have a problem of induction, and we really do have no basis for believing anything that we ever learn through science. In other words, knowledge becomes meaningless, because not only is there no rational basis for believing that there is consistency in the universe, but there would be solid evidence that we SHOULD NOT believe in it!

That is why the discipline of scientific investigation must be separated from the concept of such a god.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Ok, Science and God can

Ok, Science and God can coexist, especially the deistic God i.e. a Creator God. Science and most religion cannot coexist especially if such religion is taken seriously. For example if you were to take the literal meanings from Genesis, the Garden of Eden, the seven days, the Great Flood etc then that would go against everything we've learnt empirically, science provides no evidence that these things happened, and our empirical reasoning shows us that such events did not happen! There is no evidence of a flood, (in fact some things that seemed to be evidence of the flood, i.e. great boulders far away from the mountains, were later found to have been caused by the glaciers of the ice age).

However, the desitic God does not contradict any evidence we have, but nor does any evidence suipport it. I'm not a deist but it perhaps solves the problems of humanity's natural urge to the intentional stance without contradicting good science.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Pineapple, it's a matter of definitions.

If you give a coherent definition of god, where science does not rule out its existence, then they can coexist.

Also, as has been pointed out, many sciences don't really include anything that goes against the idea of a god.

Here, though, is the ultimately damning bit of data. If there is a god, and it really can go traipsing about the universe breaking all the laws of the universe at will, then we really DO have a problem of induction, and we really do have no basis for believing anything that we ever learn through science. In other words, knowledge becomes meaningless, because not only is there no rational basis for believing that there is consistency in the universe, but there would be solid evidence that we SHOULD NOT believe in it!

That is why the discipline of scientific investigation must be separated from the concept of such a god.

 

Perfect response Hamby. Very well said. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I see a lot of people say that science and God can't co-exist.

Why not?

People that say this forget one very important thing. Science exists. If you believe in god, then for you, science co-exists with god. Wether or not it is an amicable co-existence is a different question.


dontknow
Theist
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
To me, science indicates

To me, science indicates the existence of a god more than it does not. It seems as physics progresses, we learn there is more and more we cannot know.

The uncertainty principle of quantum mecahnics means on the very small scale ( the essence of things) and the very large (the universe as a whole) we cannot have any definite answers. The limit set by the speed of light suggests that we will never touch most of the universe.  Rational thought leads me to believe that, by design, the universe is such that mankind is not destined to understand it.

But the most compelling scientific evidence lies in the fact that the odds against a universe that can maintain life, such as ours, are virtually infinite.  This situation in itself should lend an argument to the theists, though few seem to have picked up on it.

Science's answer to this is that there must be an infinite number of universes, and we live in just one. Following this logic, is it not possible, or probable or perhaps necessary, that there be one in which a god exists? May it not be this one?

To my atheist friends (and I mean this with no sarcasm) does this not mean that atheism is a faith? If faith is a belief without scientific evidence. where is the evidence that god does not exist?  I believe that we are left with nothing more than what we choose to believe.  No rational argument can be used to prove or disprove the existence of god.  I cannot argue that anyone's belief is wrong as noone knows, nor will ever know, what the truth is.  Whatever they believe, they might be right. Be it a world of god or  science, the possibilities exist for all to be true.

I have had a few personal experiences in my life when in despair and heart-ache I have turned to god for help and been helped. These are personal experiences and are not a form of argument, but to my logical mind the results were improbable at best. I believe a survey of those with belief would result in statistics that find me amongst the majority. Could I be deluding myself? Of course! But that is not what I choose to believe.

So, is the universe ruled by science or god? Science to me is the more improbable.

 

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
It's not that they cant, it

It's not that they cant, it is just that "dieties" and "gods" started in points of time completly oposite. "Deities" did not start with microscopes and telliscopes. Deitie concepts started as a result of humans protecting their own atributes on the environment around them.

That phycology is quite normal. If you think you can name it, you think you can understand it, if you think you can understand it, you can have a false sense of control over it. But what the early humans were doing was not naming reality, they were projecting themselves on objects. Those "objects" later became beings in the sky like them.

The phycology is quite understandable but unfortunatly detrimental to humanity. "Parents" are the first to provide. They provide food, shelter and regulate behaivor of the child. Making up fiction to create a "Super parent", actually retards understanding of the world around us.

Early humans simply projected that wich "gave them life" the parent, in turn mistook the environment as a magical regulatory entity, just like the parent does with a child.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Eight Foot Manchild
Eight Foot Manchild's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Because "goddidit" ain't

Because "goddidit" ain't science.


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Eight Foot Manchild

Eight Foot Manchild wrote:
Because "goddidit" ain't science.

Neither is, "God does not exist because I say so."

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


gregfl
Posts: 170
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote:Eight Foot

e303 wrote:

Eight Foot Manchild wrote:
Because "goddidit" ain't science.

Neither is, "God does not exist because I say so."

Right.

 

Science is the study of the natural world. Therefore, Science cannot study the supernatural. This is why claims like "I can scientifically prove god exists (aka Comfort) are so idiotic. 4

 

Likewise, saying you can scientifically prove god doesn't exist is also stupid. Since the concept is 'supernatural', any attempts at discrediting the concept naturally fail. Certain claims made by theists can be shown to be scientifically ridiculous (the Genesis flood account, the creation story, etc)

 

Science and god can only co-exist if god is a natural concept, not a supernatural one.  If god is a natural entity, then he could definitely be proven or disproven (disproven) 

 

In my earlier post I answered wrong.  What I meant to say was, the belief in god and acceptance of science can co-exist.

 

 


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Entertain this if you

Entertain this if you would.

Without going hyper-complicated, we can say the universe is more complicated and its properties more unknown than we thought. That said, we can also say that science has supported that statement with the discoveries of new matter and energy that do not hold to the laws or rules we once though empirical for all things.

gear-shift....

I think most of us have either thought of or read about or seen a film about how artifficial intelligence could evolve into becoming self-aware. While this creates a bunch of problems of its own many consider that possibility a valid one given the multiple advancements in technology over the last 100 years.

gear-shift....

I think it is possible a creator is natural either evolved into a self-aware being and decided to create or is the very fabric of universe that can act with the physical and metaphysical in ways we cannot understand.

 

 

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


gregfl
Posts: 170
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: Entertain this

e303 wrote:

Entertain this if you would.

Without going hyper-complicated, we can say the universe is more complicated and its properties more unknown than we thought. That said, we can also say that science has supported that statement with the discoveries of new matter and energy that do not hold to the laws or rules we once though empirical for all things.

gear-shift....

I think most of us have either thought of or read about or seen a film about how artifficial intelligence could evolve into becoming self-aware. While this creates a bunch of problems of its own many consider that possibility a valid one given the multiple advancements in technology over the last 100 years.

gear-shift....

I think it is possible a creator is natural either evolved into a self-aware being and decided to create or is the very fabric of universe that can act with the physical and metaphysical in ways we cannot understand.

 

 

 There are very big problems with your last statement.  One being, if the creator is 'natural', then where did he live?  How does he live forever without violating natural laws?  Etc, etc etc.

The real question for you, however,  is how do you go from "I think it is possible" to "I think it is likely" and then onto more specific stuff like

"I believe the christian god doesn't want me to fornicate and will burn me for eternity if I don't believe in him".

 

This is where you completely lose me (us).  saying "it is possible"  is okay. Likely is another thing altogether. 

 

 


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
No problems

No problems just a misunderstanding. 

It has been scientificly established the "Laws" don't apply to what most of the universe is made of by the leading scientist of our time.

I am open to discovery.  I will say however the true cause of the big bang (the banger) is likely not made of or from the 4% we call home.  It is possible then to seek new answers and laws that can allow both a creator and science to co-exist.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


gregfl
Posts: 170
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote:   It is

e303 wrote:
  It is possible then to seek new answers and laws that can allow both a creator and science to co-exist.

Well, when you find them, get back to me. In the meantime I see no good reason to believe in 'god', whatever that means.


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A fair choice and a

A fair choice and a decisive belief is fair enough.Smile

Be well.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
E303, do you have any

E303, do you have any scienctific backround?


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Yes, but limited to the

Yes, but limited to the behavioral sciences. I should note however, most of my friends and poker buddies are in the field and so they have led me to some interesting bantering about all theses subjects. I have access to scientific answers and real scientist. Like most everyone, I can also read and apply some understanding to most questions at hand. I don't think one needs to be an expert to have a valid understanding of the subjects in question.

As for my friends, I will say out of 7 of us 3 are theist, I being the only one without a science background, rest are agnostics with 3 of them considering themselves former atheist.

I have tried to pull them into this site but they won't take a part in the debate because they see all as pointless and time consuming.

I think they are just bent about their poker losses. Laughinglol I try to teach them about implied odds but they are much like atheist when it comes to implied odds. Tongue out

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
e303 wrote: Eight Foot

e303 wrote:

Eight Foot Manchild wrote:
Because "goddidit" ain't science.

Neither is, "God does not exist because I say so."

Neither is, "Visnu does not exist because you say so"

Neither is, " Thor does not exist because you say so"

Neither is, "Allah does not exist because you say so"

Ok, if we go by your logic then everyone should believe in everything ever claimed  because none  of us can prove that any claim is not possible. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I am not saying others must

I am not saying others must believe.  The reason I came to this forum is to challenge the atheist conviction that a creator does not and cannot exist. I am very much opposed to others running around slamming others for their faith using 1/2 science at best to support their conclusions.

Atheism is nothing more than replacing one belief with another.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Wherever there is a belief,

Wherever there is a belief, there is an alternative.  People believe things because of what they think and see.  Their perception of the truth of the belief has no impact on the truth of their perceptions.  Theism contradicts everything that science has ever done.  It must, or science would be useless.

(Yes, this is but another perception, but the alternative is nihilism, which is self-refuting.  Some things are true because there is no alternative!)

 Since science and logic are based on axioms (things that must be true) there is more credibility in a belief system based on the scientific method.  We can carry this to the logical conclusion and say that there is no credibility in a belief system based on non-scientific inquiry, but then we get blasted by people who would really like to believe such things anyway.

But then, you've noticed that.  Tongue out

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
e303 wrote: I am not

e303 wrote:

I am not saying others must believe. The reason I came to this forum is to challenge the atheist conviction that a creator does not and cannot exist. I am very much opposed to others running around slamming others for their faith using 1/2 science at best to support their conclusions.

Atheism is nothing more than replacing one belief with another.

No one is claiming that you are forcing anyone to believe anything.

It is about your use of logic, nothing more.

Now let me try again and see if you can spot the pattern.

1. Superman can fly because you cant prove that he cant.

2. I will get 72 virgins because you cant prove that I wont.

3. Vishnu exists because you cant prove that he doesnt.

Can you see the pattern?

A claim is a claim untill it is backed up by evidence. The claims above you dont simply buy because someone claimed them. If you did you would be a fool.

If I claimed, "Prove that their isnt a purple snarfwidget under my bed making kegs of beer for me." would you simply buy it because I claimed it?

Kegs are real and so is purple so therefor my snarfwidget is real because you cant prove it isnt.

It is not about someone's right to believe, so please drop that faulty accusation. It is about one thing and one thing only. We are under no obligation to buy something that comes down the pike merely based on the fact that someone uttered a claim.

You didnt buy the claims above did you? Now ask yourself why. Then try aiming that same logic at your own claims. 

We dont disown beleivers as friends or family or co-workers because they believe, but we are not under any obligation to buy what they are selling if they cant prove it. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


gregfl
Posts: 170
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
E303, you and I were doing

E303, you and I were doing so good! Let me have a poke at your last post

 

e303 wrote:

I am not saying others must believe.  The reason I came to this forum is to challenge the atheist conviction that a creator does not and cannot exist.

 

Your problem is you have misdefined the term atheist and are running with it. An atheist lacks belief. a conviction that a creator can not exist would be an individual atheist's conviction, not a conviction of 'atheism'. Do you get this? Because frankly, it is an error that is very annoying and I am tired of repeating it. It is like me going on a christian website and saying "A christian has a conviction that infant baptism is necessary for salvation". I get refuted. Then someone else does it, and this is repeated ad nausem. 

Starting to understand yet? I sure hope so. 

 

E303 wrote:
I am very much opposed to others running around slamming others for their faith using 1/2 science at best to support their conclusions.
  I don't think "slamming" anyone for their faith is a good idea. I am with you there.  Further, I don't think science can slam faith.  The two are unrelated.  BUT, science can be used to disprove certain claims made by theists.  We have a right, as you do, to explain to people why we believe or don't believe in certain things.  You won't stop that, not here, and not anywhere. 

E303 wrote:
Atheism is nothing more than replacing one belief with another.

 

Wrong.  Atheism is choosing to not adopt a belief.  Try this..

 

'Your choice to not believe in bigfoot is just replacing one belief for another.'

 

Sounds silly, eh?  So did your statement.

 

Peace.

 

 


Kemono
Posts: 137
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: I see

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I see a lot of people say that science and God can't co-exist.

Why not?

 

Religion needs an imaginary deity; the discovery of a real one would be bad for business. If we regarded the possible existence of superhuman intelligences a scientific question (as we should), the clergy would find itself unemployed.


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
gregfl wrote:E303, you

gregfl wrote:

E303, you and I were doing so good! Let me have a poke at your last post

e303 wrote:

I am not saying others must believe.  The reason I came to this forum is to challenge the atheist conviction that a creator does not and cannot exist.

Your problem is you have misdefined the term atheist and are running with it. An atheist lacks belief. a conviction that a creator can not exist would be an individual atheist's conviction, not a conviction of 'atheism'. Do you get this? Because frankly, it is an error that is very annoying and I am tired of repeating it. It is like me going on a christian website and saying "A christian has a conviction that infant baptism is necessary for salvation". I get refuted. Then someone else does it, and this is repeated ad nausem.  Starting to understand yet? I sure hope so. 

E303 wrote:
I am very much opposed to others running around slamming others for their faith using 1/2 science at best to support their conclusions.
  I don't think "slamming" anyone for their faith is a good idea. I am with you there.  Further, I don't think science can slam faith.  The two are unrelated.  BUT, science can be used to disprove certain claims made by theists.  We have a right, as you do, to explain to people why we believe or don't believe in certain things.  You won't stop that, not here, and not anywhere. 

E303 wrote:
Atheism is nothing more than replacing one belief with another.

Wrong.  Atheism is choosing to not adopt a belief.  Try this..

'Your choice to not believe in bigfoot is just replacing one belief for another.'

Sounds silly, eh?  So did your statement.

Peace.

That is not too silly really. 

It is my choice to believe or not believe in big foot. I will say that the realm of big foot and the discovery is much more easy to gather and draw a conclusion.  The same cannot be said about a creator with most of that enviorment not even explored let alone mapped.

Atheism, defined as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.

 Note: "affirms the nonexestence of gods or rejects theism.

I don't think I am off.

 

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I should note I am all for

I should note I am all for scientific discovery as I find it very exciting.  


Pile
atheist
Pile's picture
Posts: 214
Joined: 2006-04-26
User is offlineOffline
Science and god will always

Science and god will always co-exist because religious people trust god up to the point where available medication and science gives them the instant gratification their god beliefs can't provide.


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Pile wrote:Science and god

Pile wrote:
Science and god will always co-exist because religious people trust god up to the point where available medication and science gives them the instant gratification their god beliefs can't provide.

See you on the lawn flagpole sitta. Laughing  Flagpole sitta is a song BTW.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


gregfl
Posts: 170
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote:

e303 wrote:

Atheism, defined as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.

Note: "affirms the nonexestence of gods or rejects theism.

I don't think I am off.

 

 

How come you left off the rest of that quote from Wiki?

 

"In its broadest definition, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, sometimes called nontheism"

 

The Wiki article goes on to explain, in implicit detail, what I was telling you. Did you read the article or just quote mine?

 

 

This is a lame source with a good point, emphasis mine.

about.com

"Theism, broadly defined, is just the belief in the existence of at least one god. Contrasted with this is atheism: broadly defined, atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods. Most disagreement over this comes from Christians who insist that atheism must be the denial of gods, or at least of their god. Mere absence of belief in gods is, they claim, properly labeled agnosticism — even though agnosticism has it's own definition and is about a different concept entirely.

The broad definition of atheism is most accurate. It's not only the definition atheists use, but it's supported by most comprehensive, unabridged dictionaries. The superiority of the broad over the narrow definition lies in the fact that it allows us to describe a wider range of positions."

 

Again, it is like describing a christian by one practicioner's reasons or actions within christianity. You need to drop using this definition around here if you wish to be taken seriously. Most atheists find it annoying at best and some find it downright offensive.

 

Finally, your quote:

 

"It is my choice to believe or not believe in big foot."

 

Right. 

 

So are you trying to tell me that not believing bigfoot exists is a belief system all its own? 

 

Can you yet see the error in this thinking? 


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
"atheism: broadly defined,

"atheism: broadly defined, atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods."

I did not really need more than I provided.

 The absence of belief is not some zen place that is undefined.  It is a choice not to believe in a God but without question, by saying so, creates a concept and thus a belief in such a concept.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Pile
atheist
Pile's picture
Posts: 214
Joined: 2006-04-26
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: Pile

e303 wrote:

Pile wrote:
Science and god will always co-exist because religious people trust god up to the point where available medication and science gives them the instant gratification their god beliefs can't provide.

See you on the lawn flagpole sitta. Laughing Flagpole sitta is a song BTW.

 

I'm familiar with the song. There's as much evidence that Harvey Danger is god as there is Jesus.

Why don't you guys just admit you're a sham. Seriously.

You don't really believe this theist shit either. This is just a device for you to project your own insecurities upon other people.

If you really believed in all this bullshit dogma, and that this life is merely a veil of tears, a preparation for the next glorious one, you wouldn't be so obsessed with self-indulgence and superfluous luxuries. You wouldn't be relying so much on science when its convenient, and otherwise reserving your theist tendencies for the occasional bout of burning, itching rash of unanswerable questions.

We both know you don't believe this crap either. The difference between you and I is that I admit it.  You live a lie, which is why you have to post pointless, irrational queries in forums like this.

 


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Pile wrote: e303

Pile wrote:
e303 wrote:

Pile wrote:
Science and god will always co-exist because religious people trust god up to the point where available medication and science gives them the instant gratification their god beliefs can't provide.

See you on the lawn flagpole sitta. Laughing Flagpole sitta is a song BTW.

 

I'm familiar with the song. There's as much evidence that Harvey Danger is god as there is Jesus.

Why don't you guys just admit you're a sham. Seriously.

You don't really believe this theist shit either. This is just a device for you to project your own insecurities upon other people.

If you really believed in all this bullshit dogma, and that this life is merely a veil of tears, a preparation for the next glorious one, you wouldn't be so obsessed with self-indulgence and superfluous luxuries. You wouldn't be relying so much on science when its convenient, and otherwise reserving your theist tendencies for the occasional bout of burning, itching rash of unanswerable questions.

We both know you don't believe this crap either. The difference between you and I is that I admit it.  You live a lie, which is why you have to post pointless, irrational queries in forums like this.

 

Falling apart are we?

Who said anything about Jesus or your soul?

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Pile
atheist
Pile's picture
Posts: 214
Joined: 2006-04-26
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: Falling apart

e303 wrote:

Falling apart are we?

Who said anything about Jesus or your soul?

Can you do anything besides project?

Look dude, atheists have a reason to challenge theists. Theists are taking away the civil liberties of atheists. It's not the other way around. Atheists wouldn't be on the offensive against theists if it wasn't ultimately a way to defend their freedom to not be oppressed. Theists are not being oppressed, so the conflict you propose to introduce is for an entirely different, very personal reason that has very little to do with any public, benevolent effort.

I'm just letting you know, we know it. If at some point you get tired of pretending, don't worry that we'll think any different of you because we've known all along about your mental condition.

When you pose questions about coexistence between science and religion, you're admitting you don't really believe this shit. You want the best of both worlds, because ultimately, this isn't about your beliefs.. it's about YOU and what makes you personally comfortable, and you can see that succumbing to many aspects of the secular world offers lots of superficial advantages you can't get from religion, so you're sliding more and more away from theism. That's what you're doing. You're still deluded and don't want to admit it. I'm just letting you know, we know. We see what you're doing. You're asking for permission to be even more self-absorbed and assiimilate secular ideals when they offer you convenience. There's nothing wrong with that.. it makes sense in the rational world in which we live in.  But it still doesn't completely reconcile itself with your goofy-ass dogma so stop trying.  I certainly am not going to help buff your delusion to fit into the round hole.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Holy shit, pile. That's

Holy shit, pile.

That's almost word for word what someone said to me about 18 years ago.

It made me pretty damn mad, too.  And you know what, I was mad because I knew deep down that it was true.

I know e303 isn't ready to admit it yet, but damn... I'm serious, you pulled up some interesting emotions in me just then.  I hadn't thought about that conversation in many years.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Do you have a defendable

Do you have a defendable position? If not turn yourself over to these guys.

I have debated and sustained my arguments vs the argument of: "God cannot or does not exist." I have also challenged the science used to discredit theist with science. If you have a defendable position let's here it.

The personal attacks are nothing more than your sand slipping away.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Do you have a

Quote:
Do you have a defendable position?

You still refuse to understand. This is why I wish they forced all high school students to take Critical Thinking.

We don't need a defendable position. We don't have a position. You do. You claim something exists. We ask for evidence. When you don't provide it, we simply continue our default state of not believing your claim.

This is called the Burden of Proof. There is no such thing as a Burden of Disproof. None. Doesn't exist. Can't exist.

You know why it can't exist? Because if it did, you'd have to disprove everything! Do you know why you couldn't do that? Because "everything" is a nonsense concept in that sentence. Let's start. Disprove Joy. Disprove Sadness. Disprove Santa. Disprove Buddha. Disprove One. Disprove Pluto. Disprove Satellites orbiting the center of the universe sending signals to my invisible dog Spot. Disprove Paper towels. Disprove wine. Disprove papercuts. Disprove raisins. Disprove my cat's poop. We haven't even gotten started yet. You've got 93 trillion things to disprove, but you can't even get started with that...

Do you know why?

Because first you have to disprove disproof!

Seriously, dude. Get a grip. You don't know how to think critically, and all you do is assert things. You're overmatched here. I know you're just going to assert something you've already said, if you answer at all, so it's cool, but I'm not going to bother talking to you any more.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
Do you have a defendable position?

You still refuse to understand. This is why I wish they forced all high school students to take Critical Thinking.

We don't need a defendable position. We don't have a position. You do. You claim something exists. We ask for evidence. When you don't provide it, we simply continue our default state of not believing your claim.

This is called the Burden of Proof. There is no such thing as a Burden of Disproof. None. Doesn't exist. Can't exist.

You know why it can't exist? Because if it did, you'd have to disprove everything! Do you know why you couldn't do that? Because "everything" is a nonsense concept in that sentence. Let's start. Disprove Joy. Disprove Sadness. Disprove Santa. Disprove Buddha. Disprove One. Disprove Pluto. Disprove Satellites orbiting the center of the universe sending signals to my invisible dog Spot. Disprove Paper towels. Disprove wine. Disprove papercuts. Disprove raisins. Disprove my cat's poop. We haven't even gotten started yet. You've got 93 trillion things to disprove, but you can't even get started with that...

Do you know why?

Because first you have to disprove disproof!

Seriously, dude. Get a grip. You don't know how to think critically, and all you do is assert things. You're overmatched here. I know you're just going to assert something you've already said, if you answer at all, so it's cool, but I'm not going to bother talking to you any more.

Critical thinking is what pushes some people's buttons I think.

I have analyzed and evaluated the strong conceptual position and irrational claim, "There is no god" and found it wanting. You need more support to make a claim of conviction or you are just saying it out of personal faith.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Pile
atheist
Pile's picture
Posts: 214
Joined: 2006-04-26
User is offlineOffline
John Lennon said, "God is a

John Lennon said, "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Religion is helpful when religion isn't the cause of the pain.

However, these days, more often than not, religion is the cause of the pain and therefore it creates conditions which breed these new brands of chaotic, obsessive theists who can't handle the irrconcilable nature of their beliefs with reality, so they start attacking reality instead of the basis of their own beliefs.

Theists who show up in this forum are basically looking in a mirror, pretending they're criticizing atheists and non-theist ideals. But what they're really doing is play-testing what it's like to be atheist from a little sandbox they've manufactured in their head.

There's nothing wrong with that. Most people here play along. Some more than others. I'm not as good at playing along because I am of the belief that some theists need more of a "boot camp"-type humiliation approach to break the emotional-mommy-grip religion has on


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Pile wrote: John Lennon

Pile wrote:

John Lennon said, "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

Religion is helpful when religion isn't the cause of the pain.

However, these days, more often than not, religion is the cause of the pain and therefore it creates conditions which breed these new brands of chaotic, obsessive theists who can't handle the irrconcilable nature of their beliefs with reality, so they start attacking reality instead of the basis of their own beliefs.

Theists who show up in this forum are basically looking in a mirror, pretending they're criticizing atheists and non-theist ideals. But what they're really doing is play-testing what it's like to be atheist from a little sandbox they've manufactured in their head.

There's nothing wrong with that. Most people here play along. Some more than others. I'm not as good at playing along because I am of the belief that some theists need more of a "boot camp"-type humiliation approach to break the emotional-mommy-grip religion has on

Do you really think others are winning here?

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Pile
atheist
Pile's picture
Posts: 214
Joined: 2006-04-26
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: Do you really

e303 wrote:

Do you really think others are winning here?

This statement of yours exemplifies the problem.

This isn't a sports game. There are no "sides". There's only one side, which is the truth. And when I say "truth", I don't mean the co-option of the word that theists have bastardized.

This isn't a game. That's the problem. You all think there's something to "win." There's that goofy, archaic system of reward and punishment that you foolishly think is a necessity to motivate anyone to do anything productive and benevolent.

 If you have to win at the expense of someone else's loss, and it's not merely pomp and circumstance, then you haven't won anything of any great value.

 


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Your postions are just

Your postions are just sabor rattles.  When we debate one makes a claim or position.  Everyone is free to counter the claim and everyone is free to counter the counterclaim.  That is how it works otherwise it becomes more or less unproductive. 

Is it to much to ask that you make some counterclaims that stick to the debate issues vs colorful and meaningless rantings?

Give up on the tough guy thing and try talking with reason that allows progress for your position.  I am not here to try and "save" you.  I am here to poke holes in your head about what you think about what others think.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Ok. Fine. I'll give you

Ok. Fine. I'll give you one shot at debate.

Here is my argument:

1)There is no such thing as the Burden of Disproof. This is a fundamental of syllogistic logic.

2)The Burden of Proof is always on the claimant. The claimant is the person making a positive assertion of the existence of something.

3)Theists claim god exists.

Ok, Mr. Critical Thinker. Display your learning and refute that. Only points 1, 2, and 3 are in contention. Refutation is the process by which you demonstrate through the use of syllogism that one of these points must necessarily be false.

Oh, and by the way, if you say, "Atheists claim that god does not exist," you will be ignoring the argument. I am not making a claim about atheists in my argument. You will be committing a non-sequitur, false analogy, and tu quoque if you say I'm claiming anything other than what I say in 1, 2, or 3.

Now, put up or shut up.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
This is to easy. The

This is to easy.

The entire question is scientifically illogical.  This is an absolute truth.

We are at least smart enough to know what we don't know.  Still, evidence of all that exist points to creation.  I am because I am here and you are there.  You and I are the result of a creation process. That process is scientifically inconclusive and wholly untestable at this time. The argument and proof you require is illogical given the known set of variables vs those required to answer. This does not preclude the lack of a creator. Therefore the whole scientific argument must end there for both sides and accept that more discovery must be done before a conclusion is made based on science. Which has been my whole point on this forum from post one.

It is irrational to use current scientific knowledge to test for or against a God because we don't have enough knowledge to even try.

The only thing that is left is faith for both sides.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Ok. Let's look at this.

Ok. Let's look at this. For review, here was my argument:

1)There is no such thing as the Burden of Disproof. This is a fundamental of syllogistic logic.

2)The Burden of Proof is always on the claimant. The claimant is the person making a positive assertion of the existence of something.

3)Theists claim god exists.

Quote:
The entire question is scientifically illogical.

I didn't ask any questions. What are you talking about?

Quote:
This an absolute truth.

Which one? 1, 2, or 3? These are what you're refuting, remember? Debate.

Quote:
We are at least smart enough to know what we don't know.

Which does this deal with? 1, 2, or 3?

Quote:
Still, evidence of all that exist points to creation.

Which does this deal with? 1, 2, or 3?

Quote:
I am because I am here and you are there.

Which does this deal with? 1, 2, or 3?

Quote:
You and I are the result of a creation process.

Which does this deal with? 1, 2, or 3?

Quote:
That process is scientifically inconclusive and wholly untestable at this time.

Which does this deal with? 1, 2, or 3?

Quote:
The argument and proof you require is illogical given the known set of variables vs those required to answer.

Which does this deal with? 1, 2, or 3?

Quote:
This does not preclude the lack of a creator.

Which does this deal with? 1, 2, or 3?

Quote:
Therefore the whole scientific argument must end there for both sides and accept that more discovery must be done before a conclusion is made based on science.

Which does this deal with? 1, 2, or 3?

Quote:
Which has been my whole point on this forum from post one.

Which does this deal with? 1, 2, or 3?

Quote:
It is irrational to use current scientific knowledge to test for or against a God because we don't have enough knowledge to even try.

Which does this deal with? 1, 2, or 3?

Quote:
The only thing that is left is faith for both sides.

Which does this deal with? 1, 2, or 3?

 

Seriously, e303, I would call this the dumbest response that I've ever received, but I can't call it a response! Your entire rant had absolutely nothing to do with anything that I posted! You just ignored everything I said, and went blithely along spouting platitudes. You know nothing of logic. You know nothing of critical thinking. You asked for a debate, and asked for something to refute. I gave it to you, and you ignored it completely.

I'm sorry I wasted an hour of my life on you.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
No one can debate your

No one can debate your points because they are pointless and paradoxal. You can't make a proof on something that can't be proven given the set of variables needed to disprove something. It is illogical to ask. I am surprised you did not get that.

I decided to go ahead and make a point that the 'burden of proof' using today's knowledge is pointless for both sides and both sides should not use science to prove or refute a creator because they are scientifically un-sustainable positions.

Follow?

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Pile
atheist
Pile's picture
Posts: 214
Joined: 2006-04-26
User is offlineOffline
In Dawkins book he

In Dawkins book he paraphrases another philosopher/scientist who makes a pretty obvious discovery that most theists ignore: They rely on faith over trivial, nebulous issues. But when it comes to real important things, they demand science.

The most obvious example of this is in the medical field. When a theist gets sick, there's definitely a point where they will abandon prayer and seek secular science for a solution. But you can see signs of how conditional they are about the importance of faith all over the place and it's like a flashlight illuminating what their real priorities are.

You know what would be amusing?  A christian airline.  I wonder how popular that would be?  Instead of safety instructions, you'd have a moment of prayer before take-off.  Whenever there's a noise or turbulence, instead of having someone check out the problem, the captain asks people to pray.  I'm sure that would go over like gangbusters. 

If you go to a bank and ask for an account balance and the teller responds, "About a thousand bucks" without checking, you're taking on faith this answer is accurate. Unfortunately most people, not the least of whom are theists, would not settle for relying on the "faith" in someone else. They demand secular science to give them the exact balance. Why is that? Because money is important. This is also why the level to which theists will typically "sacrifice" for their beliefs ends where it might cause major inconvenience. There are of course exceptions to this -- the muslims demonstrate more faith than christians could ever muster. You don't see christians willing to sacrifice their lives for what they believe in, and ironically, they're all too quick to condemn the muslims for being misguided in their faith.

There is a place for both science and faith though.

Place science directly on top of faith and squash it like a bug.

There's nothing in faith that science cannot address. Any intangible, emotional benefit of faith can be explained in a rational manner by science, and employed without the institutionalized program of self-loathing and repentenance that is the central core of faith and religion.

 


Pile
atheist
Pile's picture
Posts: 214
Joined: 2006-04-26
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: I decided to

e303 wrote:

I decided to go ahead and make a point that the 'burden of proof' using today's knowledge is pointless for both sides and both sides should not use science to prove or refute a creator because they are scientifically un-sustainable positions.

Follow?

Follow? Like a lemming you mean?

Someone needs to create a simple graphic to whip out because this stupid fallacy never seems to go away.

First off, you commit theist-backpedal tactic #1:  You turn from a christian into a deist when it suits your purpose.  You go from jeebus-is-my-bud to i-believe-in-a-creator-thing when it suits the argument.  If you go agnostic on us, then you are an atheist and you should admit you don't believe in religion and any of the christian dogma and doctrine, otherwise you're just dancing around grasping at straws to reason somehow, some way, you might actually have a point (news flash: you don't). 

Let's review:

1. There is no burden of proof on verifying the non-existence of something. That's irrational.

2. However, in constrast to your erroneous claim, it is not irrational, nor illogical nor unusual to demand a burden of proof when confronted with a specific claim.

3. If I claim there's an elephant in my back yard, it's reasonable for me to provide evidence for such a claim, otherwise you would be wise and reasonable to assume I am completely, how do you say it, full of shit.

4. You make a claim. Then you dance around like a monkey trying to reason that your claim is exempt from justification. That is called a double standard. It's hypocritical.

5. Logic is a function. It doesn't discriminate between theists and atheists, idiots and geniuses. If you produce jesus and demonstrate some miracles according to scientific standards, the same standards you rely on every day for tons of things around you to perform as you desire, then I guarantee you ever atheist here will admit they were wrong. Until then, it looks like, um, how do I say it... oh yea, you're full of shit.

 


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Why must there be a first

Why must there be a first cause? Because if there isn't, then the whole universe is unexplained, and we have violated our Principle of Sufficient Reason for everything.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Pile wrote:e303 wrote:I

Pile wrote:
e303 wrote:

I decided to go ahead and make a point that the 'burden of proof' using today's knowledge is pointless for both sides and both sides should not use science to prove or refute a creator because they are scientifically un-sustainable positions.

Follow?

Follow? Like a lemming you mean?

Someone needs to create a simple graphic to whip out because this stupid fallacy never seems to go away.

First off, you commit theist-backpedal tactic #1:  You turn from a christian into a deist when it suits your purpose.  You go from jeebus-is-my-bud to i-believe-in-a-creator-thing when it suits the argument.  If you go agnostic on us, then you are an atheist and you should admit you don't believe in religion and any of the christian dogma and doctrine, otherwise you're just dancing around grasping at straws to reason somehow, some way, you might actually have a point (news flash: you don't). 

Let's review:

1. There is no burden of proof on verifying the non-existence of something. That's irrational.

2. However, in constrast to your erroneous claim, it is not irrational, nor illogical nor unusual to demand a burden of proof when confronted with a specific claim.

3. If I claim there's an elephant in my back yard, it's reasonable for me to provide evidence for such a claim, otherwise you would be wise and reasonable to assume I am completely, how do you say it, full of shit.

4. You make a claim. Then you dance around like a monkey trying to reason that your claim is exempt from justification. That is called a double standard. It's hypocritical.

5. Logic is a function. It doesn't discriminate between theists and atheists, idiots and geniuses. If you produce jesus and demonstrate some miracles according to scientific standards, the same standards you rely on every day for tons of things around you to perform as you desire, then I guarantee you ever atheist here will admit they were wrong. Until then, it looks like, um, how do I say it... oh yea, you're full of shit.

It all breaks down in the end it seems...

I could say that you are not really an atheist because an atheist would take their lack of god argument and keep it in their hat. Once a lag of god concept is transfered by communication to another it becomes a concept of belief that is just as dogmatic as the Christian faith you seem to hate

As C. S. Lewis put it, "I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself."

A riddle for you...

Every being that exists either exists by itself, by its own essence or nature, or it does not exist by itself. If it exists by its own essence, then it exists necessarily and eternally, and explains itself. It cannot not exist, as a triangle cannot not have three sides.

Beings whose essence does not contain the reason for their existence, beings that need causes, are called contingent, or dependent, beings. A being whose essence is to exist is called a necessary being. The universe contains only contingent beings. God would be the only necessary being — if God existed. Does he? Does a necessary being exist? Here is the proof that it does. Dependent beings cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Pile
atheist
Pile's picture
Posts: 214
Joined: 2006-04-26
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote:

e303 wrote:

It all breaks down in the end it seems...

I could say that you are not really an atheist because an atheist would take their lack of god argument and keep it in their hat. Once a lag of god concept is transfered by communication to another it becomes a concept of belief that is just as dogmatic as the Christian faith you seem to hate

As C. S. Lewis put it, "I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself."

As Pile puts it, "C.S. Lewis, that mysogynistic narcicisst, can blow me!"

Again, you aren't paying attention. This is Atheism 101: Atheism is not a belief or world view. Unlike dogmatic religions such as christianity, there are no "rules" regarding how an atheist is supposed to behave. There's no goddam atheist "Council of Nicea" where a bunch of us assembled a stupid book that says here's what you have to do to be an atheist.

There is a difference between an opinion, which can be considered a person's position on an issue, and a world view that is centered around very specific dogma.

If you don't understand this distinction, may I suggest you hit yourself in the head with a 2x4, wait a few moments and see if whatever is shaking around loose in your brain re-adjusts itself so your mind starts functioning better.

e303 wrote:

A riddle for you...

Every being that exists either exists by itself, by its own essence or nature, or it does not exist by itself. If it exists by its own essence, then it exists necessarily and eternally, and explains itself. It cannot not exist, as a triangle cannot not have three sides.

Oooh, that's nice. I can add to that...

How much wood, could a wood chuck chuck, if a wood chuck on crack chucked wood?

e303 wrote:

Beings whose essence does not contain the reason for their existence, beings that need causes, are called contingent, or dependent, beings. A being whose essence is to exist is called a necessary being.

Ok, obviously, you need your medication adjusted or something. Seriously. It looks like you might have huffed too much Deepak Chorpa brand oven cleaner(tm).

e303 wrote:
The universe contains only contingent beings. God would be the only necessary being — if God existed. Does he? Does a necessary being exist? Here is the proof that it does. Dependent beings cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being.

Which universe are you talking about? The one under your thumbnail, or the one in your crack pipe?

Seriously what are you smoking where your presupposition begins with claiming that you understand in its totality, the nature of the universe? Damn dude... you are like way out in la-la land. Seriously, what are you on? My guess is massive doses of lithium and zoloft.

 


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
If god exists in a domain

If god exists in a domain that science can't explore (like the supernatural), then god is safe from science. However, if god exists or partially exists in a domain that science can explore, god is safe from science only if he is true.

If you take genesis as literal, then god (at least partially) exists in a domain that science can explore. From what we have learned, either this god and science can't co-exist or an ad hoc rationalization must be made to put this god out of a domain that science can explore. (such a rationalization might be similar to the "the world was created last Tuesday" skeptical hypothesis.)

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought