Proofs that prayer doesn't work.

Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Proofs that prayer doesn't work.

Unless of course the goal is talking to yourself, prayer doesn't work.

We review the following article at the beginning of show 15 featuring Amanda Bloom. You can download that show for free right here.

Quote:

Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer
Published: March 31, 2006

By BENEDICT CAREY

Story from New York Times and all over web. Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study has found.

And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications like abnormal heart rhythms, perhaps because of the expectations the prayers created, the researchers suggested.

Because it is the most scientifically rigorous investigation of whether prayer can heal illness, the study, begun almost a decade ago and involving more than 1,800 patients, has for years been the subject of speculation.

The question has been a contentious one among researchers. Proponents have argued that prayer is perhaps the most deeply human response to disease, and that it may relieve suffering by some mechanism that is not yet understood. Skeptics have contended that studying prayer is a waste of money and that it presupposes supernatural intervention, putting it by definition beyond the reach of science.

At least 10 studies of the effects of prayer have been carried out in the last six years, with mixed results. The new study was intended to overcome flaws in the earlier investigations. The report was scheduled to appear in The American Heart Journal next week, but the journal's publisher released it online yesterday.

In a hurriedly convened news conference, the study's authors, led by Dr. Herbert Benson, a cardiologist and director of the Mind/Body Medical Institute near Boston, said that the findings were not the last word on the effects of so-called intercessory prayer. But the results, they said, raised questions about how and whether patients should be told that prayers were being offered for them.

"One conclusion from this is that the role of awareness of prayer should be studied further," said Dr. Charles Bethea, a cardiologist at Integris Baptist Medical Center in Oklahoma City and a co-author of the study.

Other experts said the study underscored the question of whether prayer was an appropriate subject for scientific study.

"The problem with studying religion scientifically is that you do violence to the phenomenon by reducing it to basic elements that can be quantified, and that makes for bad science and bad religion," said Dr. Richard Sloan, a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia and author of a forthcoming book, "Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine."

The study cost $2.4 million, and most of the money came from the John Templeton Foundation, which supports research into spirituality. The government has spent more than $2.3 million on prayer research since 2000.

Dean Marek, a chaplain at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a co-author of the report, said the study said nothing about the power of personal prayer or about prayers for family members and friends.

Working in a large medical center like Mayo, Mr. Marek said, "You hear tons of stories about the power of prayer, and I don't doubt them."

In the study, the researchers monitored 1,802 patients at six hospitals who received coronary bypass surgery, in which doctors reroute circulation around a clogged vein or artery.

The patients were broken into three groups. Two were prayed for; the third was not. Half the patients who received the prayers were told that they were being prayed for; half were told that they might or might not receive prayers.

The researchers asked the members of three congregations St. Paul's Monastery in St. Paul; the Community of Teresian Carmelites in Worcester, Mass.; and Silent Unity, a Missouri prayer ministry near Kansas City ? to deliver the prayers, using the patients' first names and the first initials of their last names.

The congregations were told that they could pray in their own ways, but they were instructed to include the phrase, "for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications."

Analyzing complications in the 30 days after the operations, the researchers found no differences between those patients who were prayed for and those who were not.

In another of the study's findings, a significantly higher number of the patients who knew that they were being prayed for ? 59 percent ? suffered complications, compared with 51 percent of those who were uncertain. The authors left open the possibility that this was a chance finding. But they said that being aware of the strangers' prayers also may have caused some of the patients a kind of performance anxiety.

"It may have made them uncertain, wondering am I so sick they had to call in their prayer team?" Dr. Bethea said.

The study also found that more patients in the uninformed prayer group 18 percent suffered major complications, like heart attack or stroke, compared with 13 percent in the group that did not receive prayers. In their report, the researchers suggested that this finding might also be a result of chance.

One reason the study was so widely anticipated was that it was led by Dr. Benson, who in his work has emphasized the soothing power of personal prayer and meditation.

At least one earlier study found lower complication rates in patients who received intercessory prayers; others found no difference. A 1997 study at the University of New Mexico, involving 40 alcoholics in rehabilitation, found that the men and women who knew they were being prayed for actually fared worse.

The new study was rigorously designed to avoid problems like the ones that came up in the earlier studies. But experts said the study could not overcome perhaps the largest obstacle to prayer study: the unknown amount of prayer each person received from friends, families, and congregations around the world who pray daily for the sick and dying.

Bob Barth, the spiritual director of Silent Unity, the Missouri prayer ministry, said the findings would not affect the ministry's mission.

"A person of faith would say that this study is interesting," Mr. Barth said, "but we've been praying a long time and we've seen prayer work, we know it works, and the research on prayer and spirituality is just getting started."

Here's a youtube video from our friends at godisimaginary.com:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH0rFZIqo8A

Here's a thought from honorary Squad member, the Infidel Guy:
What is the purpose of prayer? What can a finite being on Earth possibly tell an omnipotent, omniscient deity that he doesn't know already?
1.) Humans can't change God's mind for he has a divine plan and is unchangeable.
2.) Prayer can't change God's mind.
3.) Prayer doesn't change anything.
(Prayer may make you feel better emotionally, but it doesn`t change God`s mind.)

Stop talking to your ceiling, prayer doesn't work.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote: I don't

20vturbo wrote:

I don't think it is Pascal's wager, all I said is that the only way to prove what happens after death is to die.

Do you make it a habit to believe things that the only way to prove is to die? If so, what other beliefs do you hold without this type of proof?

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote:Then what

Randalllord wrote:
Then what use is it? You can't change you mind after you die. If you were wrong then you have spent your life living for a myth.

The point of the comment was that there is now way, that I am aware of, that we can prove God does or does not exist. The reason I believe in a God is a combination of evidence that I have seen, heard, lived and also from others that are older and wiser that support my beliefs.


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:20vturbo

Sapient wrote:
20vturbo wrote:

I don't think it is Pascal's wager, all I said is that the only way to prove what happens after death is to die.

Do you make it a habit to believe things that the only way to prove is to die? If so, what other beliefs do you hold without this type of proof?

Sure, I believe in black holes, spacetime, and maybe even string theory (haven't had a lot of extra time to research in depth)


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote:Randalllord

20vturbo wrote:
Randalllord wrote:
Then what use is it? You can't change you mind after you die. If you were wrong then you have spent your life living for a myth.

The point of the comment was that there is now way, that I am aware of, that we can prove God does or does not exist.

We can disprove the 'existence' of particular gods, deductively, if the god claim is contradictory.

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote:Sapient

20vturbo wrote:
Sapient wrote:
20vturbo wrote:

I don't think it is Pascal's wager, all I said is that the only way to prove what happens after death is to die.

Do you make it a habit to believe things that the only way to prove is to die? If so, what other beliefs do you hold without this type of proof?

Sure, I believe in black holes, spacetime, and maybe even string theory (haven't had a lot of extra time to research in depth)

Black holes and spacetime can actually be studied without dying. Your analogy is flawed. String theory, which cannot be experimentally verified at the current time, will fall into the same category of 'dying not required'.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:Black holes and

KSMB wrote:
Black holes and spacetime can actually be studied without dying. Your analogy is flawed. String theory, which cannot be experimentally verified at the current time, will fall into the same category of 'dying not required'.

Ditto that.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:20vturbo

todangst wrote:
20vturbo wrote:
Randalllord wrote:
Then what use is it? You can't change you mind after you die. If you were wrong then you have spent your life living for a myth.

The point of the comment was that there is now way, that I am aware of, that we can prove God does or does not exist.

We can disprove the 'existence' of particular gods, deductively, if the god claim is contradictory.

Can you give me an example? I am not sure I understand where you are going.


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:20vturbo

KSMB wrote:
20vturbo wrote:
Sapient wrote:
20vturbo wrote:

I don't think it is Pascal's wager, all I said is that the only way to prove what happens after death is to die.

Do you make it a habit to believe things that the only way to prove is to die? If so, what other beliefs do you hold without this type of proof?

Sure, I believe in black holes, spacetime, and maybe even string theory (haven't had a lot of extra time to research in depth)

Black holes and spacetime can actually be studied without dying. Your analogy is flawed. String theory, which cannot be experimentally verified at the current time, will fall into the same category of 'dying not required'.

You can also study the existence of God without dying. So I don't see the how it is flawed.


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote:Randalllord

20vturbo wrote:
Randalllord wrote:
Then what use is it? You can't change you mind after you die. If you were wrong then you have spent your life living for a myth.

The point of the comment was that there is now way, that I am aware of, that we can prove God does or does not exist. The reason I believe in a God is a combination of evidence that I have seen, heard, lived and also from others that are older and wiser that support my beliefs.

If you can't falseify it it probably isn't real, e.g.- you can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Apollo, Zesus, Allah, Krishna or hundreds of other gods either but you don't believe them. Why not? Probably because you were taught that Yahwew was the "one true god" when your mind was vulnerable to accecpting the things that adults told you were true. The things you are relying on are thngs you have seen (which are presented by all believers of ALL faiths, so your faith can't be the "right" one), heard (meaning that you are relying on the experiences of others, again ALL religions claim this - again your religion can't be the "right" one), lived (ancedotes are not valid forms of knowledge even if they seem "real") an others (relying on authority is not a valid form of knowledge - ALL religions make this claim so yours is not the "right" one). If one only listens to the people that support your ideas/beliefs then one usually doesn't think critical and see any other point of view. If one, for example, only kept company with Democrats, you would likely believe that only Democrats were correct and on every issue. To have a valid opinion on a subject one must study and be informed of both side to the issue, otherwise you are just blindly following along. If you were born in Muslum hosehold/country I am fairly certain that you would be arguing that only the Koran is correct and would not allow your mind to consider critically any other possibility. You would probably die believing this and never know anything, but you would feel comforted that your belief(s) was(were) intact.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote:todangst

20vturbo wrote:
todangst wrote:
20vturbo wrote:
Randalllord wrote:
Then what use is it? You can't change you mind after you die. If you were wrong then you have spent your life living for a myth.

The point of the comment was that there is now way, that I am aware of, that we can prove God does or does not exist.

We can disprove the 'existence' of particular gods, deductively, if the god claim is contradictory.

Can you give me an example? I am not sure I understand where you are going.

Theodicy, the problem of evil, is one such contradiction. There are many more.

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote: If you

Randalllord wrote:

If you can't falseify it it probably isn't real, e.g.- you can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Apollo, Zesus, Allah, Krishna or hundreds of other gods either but you don't believe them. Why not?

So far I haven't seen any evidence of these Gods, therefore I believe in one God, that I believe there is evidence of.

Randalllord wrote:

Probably because you were taught that Yahwew was the "one true god" when your mind was vulnerable to accecpting the things that adults told you were true. The things you are relying on are thngs you have seen (which are presented by all believers of ALL faiths, so your faith can't be the "right" one), heard (meaning that you are relying on the experiences of others, again ALL religions claim this - again your religion can't be the "right" one), lived (ancedotes are not valid forms of knowledge even if they seem "real") an others (relying on authority is not a valid form of knowledge - ALL religions make this claim so yours is not the "right" one). If one only listens to the people that support your ideas/beliefs then one usually doesn't think critical and see any other point of view. If one, for example, only kept company with Democrats, you would likely believe that only Democrats were correct and on every issue. To have a valid opinion on a subject one must study and be informed of both side to the issue, otherwise you are just blindly following along. If you were born in Muslum hosehold/country I am fairly certain that you would be arguing that only the Koran is correct and would not allow your mind to consider critically any other possibility. You would probably die believing this and never know anything, but you would feel comforted that your belief(s) was(were) intact.

I completely agree with you and honestly an atheist (my fiance) is the reason that I am here and how I came to understand that I must search out all of these different truths to find the one that is the "real" truth....I am searching for the truth.


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:20vturbo

todangst wrote:
20vturbo wrote:
todangst wrote:
20vturbo wrote:
Randalllord wrote:
Then what use is it? You can't change you mind after you die. If you were wrong then you have spent your life living for a myth.

The point of the comment was that there is now way, that I am aware of, that we can prove God does or does not exist.

We can disprove the 'existence' of particular gods, deductively, if the god claim is contradictory.

Can you give me an example? I am not sure I understand where you are going.

Theodicy, the problem of evil, is one such contradiction. There are many more.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14569a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote:Randalllord

20vturbo wrote:
Randalllord wrote:

If you can't falseify it it probably isn't real, e.g.- you can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Apollo, Zesus, Allah, Krishna or hundreds of other gods either but you don't believe them. Why not?

So far I haven't seen any evidence of these Gods, therefore I believe in one God, that I believe there is evidence of.

What evidence of any god have you found?

20vturbo wrote:
Randalllord wrote:

Probably because you were taught that Yahwew was the "one true god" when your mind was vulnerable to accecpting the things that adults told you were true. The things you are relying on are thngs you have seen (which are presented by all believers of ALL faiths, so your faith can't be the "right" one), heard (meaning that you are relying on the experiences of others, again ALL religions claim this - again your religion can't be the "right" one), lived (ancedotes are not valid forms of knowledge even if they seem "real") an others (relying on authority is not a valid form of knowledge - ALL religions make this claim so yours is not the "right" one). If one only listens to the people that support your ideas/beliefs then one usually doesn't think critical and see any other point of view. If one, for example, only kept company with Democrats, you would likely believe that only Democrats were correct and on every issue. To have a valid opinion on a subject one must study and be informed of both side to the issue, otherwise you are just blindly following along. If you were born in Muslum hosehold/country I am fairly certain that you would be arguing that only the Koran is correct and would not allow your mind to consider critically any other possibility. You would probably die believing this and never know anything, but you would feel comforted that your belief(s) was(were) intact.

I completely agree with you and honestly an atheist (my fiance) is the reason that I am here and how I came to understand that I must search out all of these different truths to find the one that is the "real" truth....I am searching for the truth.

Thanks for at least having the courage to look at an opposing opinion. Many of us here have been right where you are currently.

Regarding "truths, when it comes to the idea of religions there can not be "truths" there can only be the truth, i.e.- something is real or it isn't. Since all religions have different beliefs about what is real/true they can not all be correct. In fact, this doesn't assure that any are correct. They may all get a few things right, like "tell the truth / don't lie", don't steal/kill/harm others, etc., none of these things are exclusive to religion. All people, religious and non-religious already know this.

Whenever someone tell you something that sounds unbelievable you usually attempt to verify the story. With no verification one should not believe the testimony. In fact, the more outrageous the claim the stringer the evidence should be.

regarding your link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14569a.htm

"...The Scotch School led by Thomas Reid taught that the fact of the existence of God is accepted by us without knowledge of reasons but simply by a natural impulse. That God exists, this school said, is one of the chief metaphysical principles that we accept not because they are evident in themselves or because they can be proved, but because common sense obliges us to accept them. "

Retard Alert! Just because many people believe something doesn't mean it's real. There was a time when everyone and common sense asserted that the Earth was flat. (BTW, the Bible was used to prop up this notion as it talked about the four corners of the Earth). Yet, they were dead wrong. It wasn't until this notion was tested that it was proven. Why believe in something no one has been able to prove? There may be a very valid explination for this "natural impulse" and it can have nothing to do with a god. For example, children are by their nature very trusting of adults. This is in most cases a good thing. If a child was a skeptic before he had many experiences to draw from he would probably die an early death. If his parents told him not to go near the edge of a cliff but he didn't beleive them and had to find out for himself, he'd probably die and not have any offspring. The other children that listened to their parents and stayed away for the edge would be more likely to have offspring with the same characteristics as them. This urge to follow an authorty figure could explain why so many people have a natural impulse to have a god ( a really big parent/authority figure).

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Randalllord wrote: Thanks

Randalllord wrote:

Thanks for at least having the courage to look at an opposing opinion. Many of us here have been right where you are currently.

Regarding "truths, when it comes to the idea of religions there can not be "truths" there can only be the truth, i.e.- something is real or it isn't. Since all religions have different beliefs about what is real/true they can not all be correct. In fact, this doesn't assure that any are correct. They may all get a few things right, like "tell the truth / don't lie", don't steal/kill/harm others, etc., none of these things are exclusive to religion. All people, religious and non-religious already know this.

Agreed that is why it is important to explore each religion to find the one or lack of one that makes the most sense.

Randalllord wrote:

Whenever someone tell you something that sounds unbelievable you usually attempt to verify the story. With no verification one should not believe the testimony. In fact, the more outrageous the claim the stringer the evidence should be.

regarding your link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14569a.htm

"...The Scotch School led by Thomas Reid taught that the fact of the existence of God is accepted by us without knowledge of reasons but simply by a natural impulse. That God exists, this school said, is one of the chief metaphysical principles that we accept not because they are evident in themselves or because they can be proved, but because common sense obliges us to accept them. "

Retard Alert! Just because many people believe something doesn't mean it's real. There was a time when everyone and common sense asserted that the Earth was flat. (BTW, the Bible was used to prop up this notion as it talked about the four corners of the Earth). Yet, they were dead wrong. It wasn't until this notion was tested that it was proven. Why believe in something no one has been able to prove? There may be a very valid explination for this "natural impulse" and it can have nothing to do with a god. For example, children are by their nature very trusting of adults. This is in most cases a good thing. If a child was a skeptic before he had many experiences to draw from he would probably die an early death. If his parents told him not to go near the edge of a cliff but he didn't beleive them and had to find out for himself, he'd probably die and not have any offspring. The other children that listened to their parents and stayed away for the edge would be more likely to have offspring with the same characteristics as them. This urge to follow an authorty figure could explain why so many people have a natural impulse to have a god ( a really big parent/authority figure).

I believe that this is only some of the evidence that points to a God. I think we all have a desire to search for where we came from and where we are going. I think the best support that I have seen as a whole is a combination of religion and science. IMO religion without science and science without religion are incomplete. I believe that there is also other evidence as well. (totally different thread) anywho its time to go home. hope everyone has a good weekend Smiling


Eric Ferguson
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote:then again

20vturbo wrote:
then again maybe not, how quick do you think time would go?? maybe souls are traveling near the speed of light?? Do we even know what time is?

Souls cannot travel at the speed of light, or at any speed. For anything to travel at a measurable rate it is either matter or energy. The soul cannot be matter, all matter is accounted for in the Universe, even that which we have not measured in detail, science tells us there is a specific amount of matter. Einstein theorized that if matter were to travel at the speed of light it would become light. This alone led to the development of nuclear technology, and has yet to be proven false. Unless a soul is some yet undiscovered energy form beyond our comprehension, the types of energy and their sources are also accounted for. Ok, maybe there's a new form of energy we haven't found, or something exists that travels faster than the speed of light.

We know what time is. We also know that time and space are related. Measurements applied to time are purely anthropological and arbitrary with regard to the rest of the universe, or a god.

The souls will wait until they are called for, not a particular square on the calendar. How fast time goes is irrelevant.

John 5:28,29 - Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Daniel 12:2 - Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

THE hour, not every hour. It's all about the day of the lord. The souls remain "sleeping", waiting.

Quote:
I think we all have a desire to search for where we came from and where we are going.

I already know. I was born, I came from a sperm and an egg. I've gone into debt. I'm going to die someday. That's about it.

Quote:
IMO religion without science and science without religion are incomplete.

I agree, or at least the "work" of each is incomplete.

Quote:
hope everyone has a good weekend

Thanks

Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote:KSMB

20vturbo wrote:
KSMB wrote:
20vturbo wrote:
Sapient wrote:
20vturbo wrote:

I don't think it is Pascal's wager, all I said is that the only way to prove what happens after death is to die.

Do you make it a habit to believe things that the only way to prove is to die? If so, what other beliefs do you hold without this type of proof?

Sure, I believe in black holes, spacetime, and maybe even string theory (haven't had a lot of extra time to research in depth)

Black holes and spacetime can actually be studied without dying. Your analogy is flawed. String theory, which cannot be experimentally verified at the current time, will fall into the same category of 'dying not required'.

You can also study the existence of God without dying. So I don't see the how it is flawed.


The existance of god is not what was discussed. However, the general idea is that you are comparing something for which there is NO evidence (God, the afterlife) to studying something real (black holes, spacetime). How do I know that is real? Because there is evidence, and I can study these things with science. That is why your analogy is flawed.


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Eric Ferguson wrote:20vturbo

Eric Ferguson wrote:
20vturbo wrote:
then again maybe not, how quick do you think time would go?? maybe souls are traveling near the speed of light?? Do we even know what time is?

Souls cannot travel at the speed of light, or at any speed. For anything to travel at a measurable rate it is either matter or energy. The soul cannot be matter, all matter is accounted for in the Universe, even that which we have not measured in detail, science tells us there is a specific amount of matter. Einstein theorized that if matter were to travel at the speed of light it would become light. This alone led to the development of nuclear technology, and has yet to be proven false. Unless a soul is some yet undiscovered energy form beyond our comprehension, the types of energy and their sources are also accounted for. Ok, maybe there's a new form of energy we haven't found, or something exists that travels faster than the speed of light.

We know what time is. We also know that time and space are related. Measurements applied to time are purely anthropological and arbitrary with regard to the rest of the universe, or a god.

The souls will wait until they are called for, not a particular square on the calendar. How fast time goes is irrelevant.

John 5:28,29 - Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Daniel 12:2 - Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

THE hour, not every hour. It's all about the day of the lord. The souls remain "sleeping", waiting.

but maybe souls are 'dark matter/energy'??!! Smiling I was just making the point that time may be irrelevant when we are dead.

Eric Ferguson wrote:

I already know. I was born, I came from a sperm and an egg. I've gone into debt. I'm going to die someday. That's about it.

I don't think there is any possible way you can know that 100% because you have yet to die.


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote: The existance of

KSMB wrote:

The existance of god is not what was discussed. However, the general idea is that you are comparing something for which there is NO evidence (God, the afterlife) to studying something real (black holes, spacetime). How do I know that is real? Because there is evidence, and I can study these things with science. That is why your analogy is flawed.

I disagree, I think there IS evidence for God.

Science gives the illusion of knowledge. Science has been wrong before and will probably be wrong in the future. For example dark energy/matter...there is no physical evidence for it however it is pretty much accepted as correct (otherwise our universe should not have lasted and spun itself apart from what I understand) There are others that are thinking of changing newtons laws to make our solar system 'work'

Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of science! Heart


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote:KSMB

20vturbo wrote:
KSMB wrote:

The existance of god is not what was discussed. However, the general idea is that you are comparing something for which there is NO evidence (God, the afterlife) to studying something real (black holes, spacetime). How do I know that is real? Because there is evidence, and I can study these things with science. That is why your analogy is flawed.

I disagree, I think there IS evidence for God.


I have do doubt you believe that. It is that fact which makes me think that you do not know what is meant by "evidence".

20vturbo wrote:
Science gives the illusion of knowledge. Science has been wrong before and will probably be wrong in the future. For example dark energy/matter...there is no physical evidence for it however it is pretty much accepted as correct (otherwise our universe should not have lasted and spun itself apart from what I understand) There are others that are thinking of changing newtons laws to make our solar system 'work'

Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of science! Heart


No, science is about aquiring empirical knowledge. These facts do not care if I believe in them or not, and I cannot ignore them if I happen to dislike them. That is knowledge.

Sure, science have gotten things wrong, and science have then corrected what was wrong. It is about gaining knowledge. That is one of the reasons science works. Nothing like that can possibly be said about religion.

Dark energy is what is postulated by cosmologists to account for the observed accelerated expansion of the universe. Dark matter is observed by rotation curves of galaxies etc, and the latest observational evidence for it is very exciting. Read the press release here:
http://home.slac.stanford.edu/pressreleases/2006/20060821.htm
That pretty much kills the idea about modified newtonian dynamics. However, should new evidence come up, and someone makes a better theory to explain it all, scientists will test it, and if it holds up to that it will be the new dominant theory. Science is about reality.

That is why I love science. I love it so much, that I study astrophysics for a living.


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:I have do doubt

KSMB wrote:
I have do doubt you believe that. It is that fact which makes me think that you do not know what is meant by "evidence".

To me evidence refers to anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of something.

KSMB wrote:

No, science is about aquiring empirical knowledge. These facts do not care if I believe in them or not, and I cannot ignore them if I happen to dislike them. That is knowledge.

Sure, science have gotten things wrong, and science have then corrected what was wrong. It is about gaining knowledge. That is one of the reasons science works. Nothing like that can possibly be said about religion.

It can be said about religion. Religion is about acquiring knowledge and wisdom about yourself, others and the world. It doesn't matter if no one believes the truth, it is still the truth.

KSMB wrote:

Dark energy is what is postulated by cosmologists to account for the observed accelerated expansion of the universe. Dark matter is observed by rotation curves of galaxies etc, and the latest observational evidence for it is very exciting. Read the press release here:
http://home.slac.stanford.edu/pressreleases/2006/20060821.htm
That pretty much kills the idea about modified newtonian dynamics. However, should new evidence come up, and someone makes a better theory to explain it all, scientists will test it, and if it holds up to that it will be the new dominant theory. Science is about reality.

To my knowledge it is all still all based on observing something causing something else. there is still no direct observation. I am not denying that there is dark matter/energy, I was only saying this is an example of something that could be completely wrong...But I still believe that most of the evidence supports it! Smiling

KSMB wrote:

That is why I love science. I love it so much, that I study astrophysics for a living.

That has to be the coolest job ever!! what exactly do you do? Who do you work for?


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote: That is why I

KSMB wrote:

That is why I love science. I love it so much, that I study astrophysics for a living.

oh yeah and what else is new and cool in astrophysics? any cool web sites you suggest?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Please, religion is all

Please, religion is all about believing without evidence, unless you are stupid enough to count a book written over a thousand years ago who nobody knows the author as evidence - when virtually everything it says about the universe is wrong.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote:KSMB wrote:I

20vturbo wrote:
KSMB wrote:
I have do doubt you believe that. It is that fact which makes me think that you do not know what is meant by "evidence".

To me evidence refers to anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of something.


If by truth you mean reality. Show me how you use evidence to demonstrate the religious claims.

20vturbo wrote:
KSMB wrote:

No, science is about aquiring empirical knowledge. These facts do not care if I believe in them or not, and I cannot ignore them if I happen to dislike them. That is knowledge.

Sure, science have gotten things wrong, and science have then corrected what was wrong. It is about gaining knowledge. That is one of the reasons science works. Nothing like that can possibly be said about religion.

It can be said about religion. Religion is about acquiring knowledge and wisdom about yourself, others and the world. It doesn't matter if no one believes the truth, it is still the truth.


Ok, I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you... religion is about worshiping a diety. The "knowledge" of which you speak in connection with religion is about how to do that. Aquiring knowledge about myself and others is called anthropology, and it is very interesting. Knowledge about the earth comes from geology, meteorology, physics, biology, chemistry etc etc. All of those are sciences, whereas religion.... isn't.

20vturbo wrote:
KSMB wrote:

Dark energy is what is postulated by cosmologists to account for the observed accelerated expansion of the universe. Dark matter is observed by rotation curves of galaxies etc, and the latest observational evidence for it is very exciting. Read the press release here:
http://home.slac.stanford.edu/pressreleases/2006/20060821.htm
That pretty much kills the idea about modified newtonian dynamics. However, should new evidence come up, and someone makes a better theory to explain it all, scientists will test it, and if it holds up to that it will be the new dominant theory. Science is about reality.

To my knowledge it is all still all based on observing something causing something else. there is still no direct observation. I am not denying that there is dark matter/energy, I was only saying this is an example of something that could be completely wrong...But I still believe that most of the evidence supports it! Smiling


I am with you there. It is a side effect of being confined so an insignificant blue-green dot orbiting an insignificant yellow dwarf star among billions and billions of stars. We can't go out there and check directly. All we can do is analyse the radiation coming at us.
20vturbo wrote:
KSMB wrote:

That is why I love science. I love it so much, that I study astrophysics for a living.

That has to be the coolest job ever!! what exactly do you do? Who do you work for?


I am a graduate student and research assistant. I get payed to go to school and help my professor do research. It is the best job ever, minus the part where one is under payed when considering the level of education you must have to get there. We do observations into star forming regions, using radio- microwave- and infrared telescopes. Essentially, I study really big clouds of gas, to learn more about how stars form.

I have a few resources that I think are pretty good for astro news:
http://www.nasa.gov/news/highlights/index.html
http://www.space.com/news/
and of course there are the pretty pages with astro photos. The Links-page on every astronomy department's home page usually have a bunch of those.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote:todangst

20vturbo wrote:
todangst wrote:
20vturbo wrote:
Randalllord wrote:
Then what use is it? You can't change you mind after you die. If you were wrong then you have spent your life living for a myth.

The point of the comment was that there is now way, that I am aware of, that we can prove God does or does not exist.

We can disprove the 'existence' of particular gods, deductively, if the god claim is contradictory.

Can you give me an example? I am not sure I understand where you are going.

I'll make one for you even more trivial than Todangst did....

Can a god exist that is all loving and yet hates something or someone at the same time? Answer: NO.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:20vturbo

Sapient wrote:
20vturbo wrote:
todangst wrote:
20vturbo wrote:
Randalllord wrote:
Then what use is it? You can't change you mind after you die. If you were wrong then you have spent your life living for a myth.

The point of the comment was that there is now way, that I am aware of, that we can prove God does or does not exist.

We can disprove the 'existence' of particular gods, deductively, if the god claim is contradictory.

Can you give me an example? I am not sure I understand where you are going.

I'll make one for you even more trivial than Todangst did....

Can a god exist that is all loving and yet hates something or someone at the same time? Answer: NO.


If that God is all powerful and all knowing ect ect...yes

Is it possible that we somehow lack the language or understanding to interpret some things at this time? maybe.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote:Sapient

20vturbo wrote:
Sapient wrote:
20vturbo wrote:
todangst wrote:
20vturbo wrote:
Randalllord wrote:
Then what use is it? You can't change you mind after you die. If you were wrong then you have spent your life living for a myth.

The point of the comment was that there is now way, that I am aware of, that we can prove God does or does not exist.

We can disprove the 'existence' of particular gods, deductively, if the god claim is contradictory.

Can you give me an example? I am not sure I understand where you are going.

I'll make one for you even more trivial than Todangst did....

Can a god exist that is all loving and yet hates something or someone at the same time? Answer: NO.


If that God is all powerful and all knowing ect ect...yes

Is it possible that we somehow lack the language or understanding to interpret some things at this time? maybe.

So you worship a self-contradictory God and rationalize that away by saying that you just don't understand him yet?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote: If by truth you

KSMB wrote:

If by truth you mean reality. Show me how you use evidence to demonstrate the religious claims.

Sure I will try (although I am no theologian...not even close), what religious claim?

KSMB wrote:

Ok, I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you... religion is about worshiping a diety. The "knowledge" of which you speak in connection with religion is about how to do that. Aquiring knowledge about myself and others is called anthropology, and it is very interesting. Knowledge about the earth comes from geology, meteorology, physics, biology, chemistry etc etc. All of those are sciences, whereas religion.... isn't.

I agree that all of those are about acquiring knowledge, but I also believe that religion is also about acquiring knowledge. For example what is the value of human life? Where does that value come from?

KSMB wrote:

I have a few resources that I think are pretty good for astro news:
http://www.nasa.gov/news/highlights/index.html
http://www.space.com/news/
and of course there are the pretty pages with astro photos. The Links-page on every astronomy department's home page usually have a bunch of those.

Thanks, I will check those out!


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: So you

jcgadfly wrote:

So you worship a self-contradictory God and rationalize that away by saying that you just don't understand him yet?

Think about it. If there was a God do you really think we could understand God at this point in time? We can't even figure out weather...the ocean...ect. ect. ect.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: We can

todangst wrote:

We can disprove the 'existence' of particular gods, deductively, if the god claim is contradictory.

20vturbo wrote:

Can you give me an example? I am not sure I understand where you are going.

todangst wrote:

Theodicy, the problem of evil, is one such contradiction. There are many more.

Yeah, so? How do any of those posts help solve the problem of evil?

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote:jcgadfly

20vturbo wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

So you worship a self-contradictory God and rationalize that away by saying that you just don't understand him yet?

Think about it. If there was a God do you really think we could understand God at this point in time? We can't even figure out weather...the ocean...ect. ect. ect.

I did think about it. You have a god that claims to be all loving yet hates certain people/things. You have a god that claims to be all good and also claims to have created evil.

Your god is self contradictory and you rationalize it away by using an appeal to ignorance.

The question is - Have you thought about it?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote:Sapient

20vturbo wrote:
Sapient wrote:

I'll make one for you even more trivial than Todangst did....

Can a god exist that is all loving and yet hates something or someone at the same time? Answer: NO.


If that God is all powerful and all knowing ect ect...yes

Is it possible that we somehow lack the language or understanding to interpret some things at this time? maybe.

Here are the problems with your respone. You're giving us a special plead fallacy. Your argument basically states: If 'god is omnipotent', then anything is possible, including logical inconsistency.

Now I might suprise you here by agreeing with you on this point. Seriously, I actually do agree with your assessment:L Omnipotence does obviate logical necessity. To place limits on omnipotence in order to have a god that 'follows' laws, hence a god that 'makes sense' is itself an illogical claim. So I agree with you.

HOWEVER once we go down the path of defining 'god' as something beyond logic, (as logic itself, ironically demans) then we are compelled by reason itself to accept that we cannot make ANY logical or rational claims about this 'god' any longer... since we have determined that this 'god' is beyond sense, beyond the limits of reason, we cannot at the same time, insist that this god follow the laws of metaphysics, or logic, i.e. we cannot insist that this god obey the dictates of reason, i.e. make 'sense'... If we define god as 'beyond how we make sense" we can't, at the same time, speak of this 'god' as if it also makes sense.

Do you see?

So your response necessitates that you concede that anything else you say about 'god' is irrational....

So I must ask you: are you sure this is the response you wish to make?

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote:KSMB

20vturbo wrote:
KSMB wrote:

If by truth you mean reality. Show me how you use evidence to demonstrate the religious claims.

Sure I will try (although I am no theologian...not even close), what religious claim?


Anything supernatural.

20vturbo wrote:
I agree that all of those are about acquiring knowledge, but I also believe that religion is also about acquiring knowledge. For example what is the value of human life? Where does that value come from?

[

20vturbo wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

So you worship a self-contradictory God and rationalize that away by saying that you just don't understand him yet?

Think about it. If there was a God do you really think we could understand God at this point in time? We can't even figure out weather...the ocean...ect. ect. ect.


Don't you see the contradiction? You say religion is about knowledge but then you claim that you can't understand god anyway. Don't you see the uselessness in such a concept?

I can also ask questions to which there is no absolute answer. Like "what is the color of tuesday?" and "what's north of the north pole?". Your desire for there being an ultimate answer to the value of human life and the meaning of life, the universe and everything, doesn't mean there is. You have just tried to solve that problem by inventing a god to provide answers. But that is pointless, since that only raises questions as to why, and you yourself suggested that you can't understand god anyway.

Oh, and the answer is obviously 42. I dare you to disprove that.


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:20vturbo

jcgadfly wrote:
20vturbo wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

So you worship a self-contradictory God and rationalize that away by saying that you just don't understand him yet?

Think about it. If there was a God do you really think we could understand God at this point in time? We can't even figure out weather...the ocean...ect. ect. ect.

I did think about it. You have a god that claims to be all loving yet hates certain people/things. You have a god that claims to be all good and also claims to have created evil.

Your god is self contradictory and you rationalize it away by using an appeal to ignorance.

The question is - Have you thought about it?

Of course I've thought about it. who does God claim to hate? You can create something and still hate part of it because there is a larger picture. I am not "rationalizing away anything" that is the point of religion is to figure out answers to questions such as this.


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:20vturbo

todangst wrote:
20vturbo wrote:
Sapient wrote:

I'll make one for you even more trivial than Todangst did....

Can a god exist that is all loving and yet hates something or someone at the same time? Answer: NO.


If that God is all powerful and all knowing ect ect...yes

Is it possible that we somehow lack the language or understanding to interpret some things at this time? maybe.

Here are the problems with your respone. You're giving us a special plead fallacy. Your argument basically states: If 'god is omnipotent', then anything is possible, including logical inconsistency.

Now I might suprise you here by agreeing with you on this point. Seriously, I actually do agree with your assessment:L Omnipotence does obviate logical necessity. To place limits on omnipotence in order to have a god that 'follows' laws, hence a god that 'makes sense' is itself an illogical claim. So I agree with you.

HOWEVER once we go down the path of defining 'god' as something beyond logic, (as logic itself, ironically demans) then we are compelled by reason itself to accept that we cannot make ANY logical or rational claims about this 'god' any longer... since we have determined that this 'god' is beyond sense, beyond the limits of reason, we cannot at the same time, insist that this god follow the laws of metaphysics, or logic, i.e. we cannot insist that this god obey the dictates of reason, i.e. make 'sense'... If we define god as 'beyond how we make sense" we can't, at the same time, speak of this 'god' as if it also makes sense.

Do you see?

So your response necessitates that you concede that anything else you say about 'god' is irrational....

So I must ask you: are you sure this is the response you wish to make?

It is the only response to make. If God is God then he is not bound, however we can logically and rationally make the argument to believe in him for several reasons...the least of which is
our existence and self awareness. If the God that I believe exists then he gave us this "logic" to try to give us some type of understanding of him. One of great things about life is it gives us the opportunity to try to learn more and more until finally we die and have the "rest" revealed to us...or nothing happens when we die(which reminds me of a hilarious Dane Cook skit you guys would laugh at!)


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote: Of course

20vturbo wrote:

Of course I've thought about it. who does God claim to hate? You can create something and still hate part of it because there is a larger picture. I am not "rationalizing away anything" that is the point of religion is to figure out answers to questions such as this.

Why do people hate things? Have you explored that? If so, how can an all powerful, all intelligent being hate anything?

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote: Anything

KSMB wrote:

Anything supernatural.

I can't prove anything supernatural or it wouldn't be supernatural but I believe there is other evidence of a God that is not "super"

KSMB wrote:

Don't you see the contradiction? You say religion is about knowledge but then you claim that you can't understand god anyway. Don't you see the uselessness in such a concept?

I can see why it would seem that way, but I believe that you can have a better understanding of God than we have today all the way up to (my death probably b/c I am not going to live that long) a point I don't think we have hit

KSMB wrote:

I can also ask questions to which there is no absolute answer. Like "what is the color of tuesday?" and "what's north of the north pole?". Your desire for there being an ultimate answer to the value of human life and the meaning of life, the universe and everything, doesn't mean there is. You have just tried to solve that problem by inventing a god to provide answers. But that is pointless, since that only raises questions as to why, and you yourself suggested that you can't understand god anyway.

Oh, and the answer is obviously 42. I dare you to disprove that.

I agree you can ask those questions that have no answers but the answers don't really matter. right? The answer to the question I proposed does matter. It can lead to things like the holocausts if there is no answer.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote:KSMB

20vturbo wrote:
KSMB wrote:

Anything supernatural.

I can't prove anything supernatural or it wouldn't be supernatural but I believe there is other evidence of a God that is not "super"

I just wanted to note that you seem to grasp the concept of superntural correctly, it's a broken concept epistemologically, nothing can refer to it by definition.

So kudos to you (sorry if that comes off as condescending, I don't intend it that way)

But how can you provide evidence for a god at all? How can there be any empirical or rational basis for any statement for a god? It must be on faith first, as Kierkegaard argued...

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: I just

todangst wrote:

I just wanted to note that you seem to grasp the concept of superntural correctly, it's a broken concept epistemologically, nothing can refer to it by definition.

So kudos to you (sorry if that comes off as condescending, I don't intend it that way)

No not at all, I really am here to learn as much as possible! I mean I only have a finite amount of years to learn! Smiling

todangst wrote:

But how can you provide evidence for a god at all? How can there be any empirical or rational basis for any statement for a god? It must be on faith first, as Kierkegaard argued...

I'm not sure who Kierkegaard is, I will have to search and get back to you.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: But how can

todangst wrote:

But how can you provide evidence for a god at all? How can there be any empirical or rational basis for any statement for a god? It must be on faith first, as Kierkegaard argued...

Exactly. If you want to say that despite the impossibility of having evidence for God because it's beyong our universe as we know it (supernatural), then by all means. Just don't be surprised when people don't agree with you.

You must at least see where we are coming from, even if you disagree. If I claimed that I knew aliens have visited our planet and interacted with people often, would you at very least request some evidence.

And if you are going to insist that God has evidence that we can evaluate, because it exists naturally, then present it. But before you bring up design, first cause (cosmological argument), or the ontological argument, you should at least try to read about the classical refutations of these arguments and comment on the refutations first, to save us having to go through some 100 posts or so to deal with them again here.

You have to believe me that I sincerely doubt what you consider to be evidence is new, but maybe I'm wrong. This doubt is not unfounded, as years of talking with theists has rarely resulted in anything I didn't discover in my first few weeks of researching the question of gods' existence.

Shaun

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:20vturbo

todangst wrote:
20vturbo wrote:
KSMB wrote:

Anything supernatural.

I can't prove anything supernatural or it wouldn't be supernatural but I believe there is other evidence of a God that is not "super"

I just wanted to note that you seem to grasp the concept of superntural correctly, it's a broken concept epistemologically, nothing can refer to it by definition.

So kudos to you (sorry if that comes off as condescending, I don't intend it that way)

But how can you provide evidence for a god at all? How can there be any empirical or rational basis for any statement for a god? It must be on faith first, as Kierkegaard argued...

From what I read I agree that there can be doubt....I think doubt is what leads us to search. The best Catholics in my experience are not cradle Catholics. However I do disagree that if you believe there is evidence of Gods existence it makes you less religious. We still have faith in the "super natural". I don't think that rationality makes us less religious.


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
ShaunPhilly wrote:

ShaunPhilly wrote:

Exactly. If you want to say that despite the impossibility of having evidence for God because it's beyong our universe as we know it (supernatural), then by all means. Just don't be surprised when people don't agree with you.

I don't expect you to agree with me, I am actually not here to convert anyone but myself(I am not NEAR educated enough nor have enough experience to convert any of you...I mean come on....that one guy that is an astrophysicist) I am here to see if I can find any evidence that there is no God.

ShaunPhilly wrote:

You must at least see where we are coming from, even if you disagree. If I claimed that I knew aliens have visited our planet and interacted with people often, would you at very least request some evidence.

And if you are going to insist that God has evidence that we can evaluate, because it exists naturally, then present it. But before you bring up design, first cause (cosmological argument), or the ontological argument, you should at least try to read about the classical refutations of these arguments and comment on the refutations first, to save us having to go through some 100 posts or so to deal with them again here.

You have to believe me that I sincerely doubt what you consider to be evidence is new, but maybe I'm wrong. This doubt is not unfounded, as years of talking with theists has rarely resulted in anything I didn't discover in my first few weeks of researching the question of gods' existence.

Shaun

I don't believe the ID argument, I am not a fundamentalist. I however do see that it defies the laws of physics to have matter created from nothing but that isn't the reason I believe in God.

So that I don't put you guys through repeat mode can you point me to the threads I should read with your arguments in them?


kristoffer
Posts: 22
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
sorry bro.. it might just be

sorry bro.. it might just be the fact im not american... but we got past these childish arguments in high school over here..
(northern europe) the only worthy argument u can make with certainty = the modern day bible is wrong, inaccurate, and edited... the rest is at the very best a well educated guess..
high horse? might wanna get off it...


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
kristoffer wrote:sorry bro..

kristoffer wrote:
sorry bro.. it might just be the fact im not american... but we got past these childish arguments in high school over here..
(northern europe) the only worthy argument u can make with certainty = the modern day bible is wrong, inaccurate, and edited... the rest is at the very best a well educated guess..
high horse? might wanna get off it...

??


Eric Ferguson
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote:Science has

20vturbo wrote:
Science has been wrong before and will probably be wrong in the future. For example dark energy/matter...there is no physical evidence for it however it is pretty much accepted as correct (otherwise our universe should not have lasted and spun itself apart from what I understand) There are others that are thinking of changing newtons laws to make our solar system 'work'

Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of science!

The great thing about science is that it evolves. We continue to learn. Science can be wrong. Karl Popper (atheist) created the position of falsifiability. Most people don't understand how science works, backwards. You start with an idea, move to hypothesis, and then try to disprove it, not search for proof. When you can no longer disprove it you have theory. What makes the global warming stuff bad science for example is they picked a position and tried to prove it. Once you reach that goal you stop looking. Theism works the same way. In order to actually prove the existence of a god or gods one needs to continually try to disprove it. When you can no longer disprove the existence of god it is safe to assume that one exists.

Actually the concept of dark matter has been proven. Einstein was right, as usual, he believed there was some stuff in the universe holding it all together. We don't yet know what it is, how it works, or how much is there, but we have proved it's existence through the same scientific process. Just because we don't have a container full of the stuff doesn't mean we cannot tell it's there. You could maybe say the same thing about god. But, time after time science has tried to disprove the hypothesis of dark matter, and cannot, instead we learn more about it.

You understand correctly. Our solar system and most likely the universe itself would have blown apart from inertia if what we understand about gravity is true.
Newton's law still holds true. But it doesn't account for additional forces such as dark matter.

In August of this year the most accurate measurement of dark matter was made, verifying the position that it accounts for one quarter of all the matter in the universe. The idea is that this stuff itself produces/contains energy and acts as gravity and/or against it. Using x-ray measurements we find the matter emits energy.
Six years ago at the Canada-France-Hawaii telescope were the first measurements of the distribution of this stuff.

It's important to note that the big bang theory and evolution do not disprove the existence of god. "Holy" scriptures are all we need for that. It's the lack of evidence for a god's existence that is key.

I'm a "weak" atheist in this respect. If there is a god/gods/creator we know absolutely nothing about him/her/it/them. I cannot say for certain there is no god. I do know there isn't a religion on Earth that verifies the existence of one, at all.

Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Eric Ferguson wrote: The

Eric Ferguson wrote:

The great thing about science is that it evolves. We continue to learn. Science can be wrong. Karl Popper (atheist) created the position of falsifiability. Most people don't understand how science works, backwards. You start with an idea, move to hypothesis, and then try to disprove it, not search for proof. When you can no longer disprove it you have theory. What makes the global warming stuff bad science for example is they picked a position and tried to prove it. Once you reach that goal you stop looking. Theism works the same way. In order to actually prove the existence of a god or gods one needs to continually try to disprove it. When you can no longer disprove the existence of god it is safe to assume that one exists.

That is what I am trying to do here. Smiling

Eric Ferguson wrote:

Actually the concept of dark matter has been proven. Einstein was right, as usual, he believed there was some stuff in the universe holding it all together. We don't yet know what it is, how it works, or how much is there, but we have proved it's existence through the same scientific process. Just because we don't have a container full of the stuff doesn't mean we cannot tell it's there. You could maybe say the same thing about god. But, time after time science has tried to disprove the hypothesis of dark matter, and cannot, instead we learn more about it.

You understand correctly. Our solar system and most likely the universe itself would have blown apart from inertia if what we understand about gravity is true.
Newton's law still holds true. But it doesn't account for additional forces such as dark matter.

In August of this year the most accurate measurement of dark matter was made, verifying the position that it accounts for one quarter of all the matter in the universe. The idea is that this stuff itself produces/contains energy and acts as gravity and/or against it. Using x-ray measurements we find the matter emits energy.
Six years ago at the Canada-France-Hawaii telescope were the first measurements of the distribution of this stuff.

yeah, I think the astrophysicist pointed that out, it was only an example that we don't always have the physical ability to "see" some of the theories out there.

Eric Ferguson wrote:

It's important to note that the big bang theory and evolution do not disprove the existence of god. "Holy" scriptures are all we need for that. It's the lack of evidence for a god's existence that is key.

depending on if you take scripture as literal or not.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote:todangst

20vturbo wrote:
todangst wrote:

So I must ask you: are you sure this is the response you wish to make?

It is the only response to make.

Agreed. However, it necessarily follows that you cannot make any claims about this god, once you define this 'god' as beyond logic.

Note: Saying this is not making a statement about this god, it is defining this 'god' as beyond our ken.

Quote:

If God is God then he is not bound, however we can logically and rationally make the argument to believe in him for several reasons...the least of which is

Incorrect. Once you decree, by definition, a priori, that this 'god' is beyond reason, then you cannot reason towards this god.

This follows necessarily.

Quote:

our existence and self awareness.

Neither of these natural processes can point back to their own antithesis, the superntaural. You cannot make a logical, rational argument from nature, to the supernatural.

Quote:

If the God that I believe exists then he gave us this "logic" to try to give us some type of understanding of him.

Saying 'god gave us logic' is the sort of unexamined statement that falls to pieces upon examination. For example, what does it even mean to say this?

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:20vturbo

todangst wrote:
20vturbo wrote:
todangst wrote:

So I must ask you: are you sure this is the response you wish to make?

It is the only response to make.

Agreed. However, it necessarily follows that you cannot make any claims about this god, once you define this 'god' as beyond logic.

Note: Saying this is not making a statement about this god, it is defining this 'god' as beyond our ken.

Quote:

If God is God then he is not bound, however we can logically and rationally make the argument to believe in him for several reasons...the least of which is

Incorrect. Once you decree, by definition, a priori, that this 'god' is beyond reason, then you cannot reason towards this god.

This follows necessarily.

Quote:

our existence and self awareness.

Neither of these natural processes can point back to their own antithesis, the superntaural. You cannot make a logical, rational argument from nature, to the supernatural.

Quote:

If the God that I believe exists then he gave us this "logic" to try to give us some type of understanding of him.

Saying 'god gave us logic' is the sort of unexamined statement that falls to pieces upon examination. For example, what does it even mean to say this?

you're right, my flaw. I'm not sure how to say it. I have the thought that there is a God based on what I have learned and seen so far. I believe that there is a God that was always rather than energy that was just was always(or maybe God is a form of energy unknown to us...that way we could all agree! --- wayyy out in left field just what popped in my head). I am completely open to learning new stuff, I have been learning a lot about from some of you guys, so thanks! Smiling


Eric Ferguson
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote: Eric

20vturbo wrote:
Eric Ferguson wrote:
It's important to note that the big bang theory and evolution do not disprove the existence of god. "Holy" scriptures are all we need for that. It's the lack of evidence for a god's existence that is key.
depending on if you take scripture as literal or not.

It doesn't matter. Bible, Tipitaka, Tanakh, Tora, Al-Qur'an, Katha, Pyrgi, Sruti, Greek mythology, whatever... Interpreting them literally proves they're mythic stories and nothing more becuase they are filled with contradictions and illogical behavior. Everyone on this planet should be at war over their religion of choice, they're texts demand it. We should even kill our own children if they don't follow our faith. Religious leaders claim they have proof that it's true, but when asked to present it they never can, because there isn't any. There is barely any historical data to support the names, places, or events in religious texts. Satan dares God, God punishes Job severely, "ha, see Satan, told you so." God knew Job wouldn't give up on his faith, he's prophetic after all. Wouldn't he also know that he would win the argument and yet Satan still wouldn't care? Hmmm, couldn't foresee that? So he tortured Job for fun? Queers should be put to death. Disobedient children should be put to death. If a man witnesses a woman's menstrual cycle they are both to be put to death. He couldn't even spare his son from pain. If God is so omnipotent why not influence everyone? He couldn't change the minds of few people and have his son thrown off a cliff or something? Jews spent 40 years wandering the dessert and there isn't even one speck of sand that indicates they were there? Noah collected several billion species of plants, animals, and insects onto one ark? And then distributed them carefully so the penguins ended up at the Arctic, marsupials in Australia? And only 2 humans begat black people in Africa and yellow people in Asia and red people in North America...etc. It's clear you cannot take it literally.

To take them figuratively is admitting they're mythical. If you recognize that Noah is mythical how can you not recognize that even if he actually existed, the Jesus story is folklore.

Taking these texts both ways, some parts true and others figurative is not acceptable. There is no way to know which is which. Leviticus is true and Exodus isn't? Since there's no record of jews being freed from Egypt that part just mythical. So if Exodus is wrong then I guess it's ok to boil a baby goat in it's mother's milk, even though it's a commandment. But when he says it again in Deuteronomy he means it. Or maybe not. You can't pick and choose. It's either literal or it isn't. Guess what. It isn't.

Some of these texts are centuries older than the Bible, some more recent. They all have commonalities, a God or Gods, a savior or hero that does the God's bidding, whom loses favor with the people and is killed or bannished.

For most everyone everywhere (theists), their religion is a product of their environment. The United States is a Christian nation because our parents were Christians, not because God loves America. For anyone to proclaim that their faith is the one and only true way is ludacris.

Jesus had better marketing I suppose. Apollonius of Tyana: his life parallels Jesus'. Both walked the Earth at the same time beginning in what we know as year zero. He became a religious teacher as a young man, he traveled to the Euphrates river, raised the dead, healed the sick, could see the future, you can guess the rest. His popularity actually outlasted that of Jesus reaching about 230 years beyond the writing of the Bible gospels. Apollonius' story was then squelched by the Christian church. The Light Party worships him as the true Christ, Jesus is a false messiah. Apollonius supposedly appeared as Joshua and Jeshua.

Again all we need are the texts themselves to disprove their validity as written or inspired by the divine.

"Read your Bible because we need more atheists, and nothing will get you there quicker than reading the damn bible."
- Penn Jillette

Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
you would need to study the

you would need to study the bible, the history, all the people who passed down the stories, ect ect.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote:

20vturbo wrote:
you would need to study the bible, the history, all the people who passed down the stories, ect ect.
Perhaps you should read more closely yourself before you make such pronouncements of others. Or are you reading it with rose colored glasses on? I have read the bible 12 times and here's what i found:

Is all scripture inspired by God?

Yes

  • [2 Tim 3:16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
No
  • [1 Cor 7:12] But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: if any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
  • [25] Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgement, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

 {fixed color}

God had no time to create time.