Here be Dragons

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: przero
So has science proven that God does not exist?

has science proven that the tooth fairy does not exist?

It's pretty much impossible to prove a negative so let's turn the tables.

WHAT proof is there that the tooth fairy does exist, what proof is there that God exists?

Do you believe everything you are told or are you just scared of your own meaninglessness?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Well now it seems to me someone around here has a sig that includes a link to a page about good argumentation. Since my logic and philosophy courses are a few years behind me now, it was a useful refresher.

I believe you'll find a section on 'burden of proof' which should provide enough theory to show why it is the existence of God that requires proof, logically speaking, not the absence. (You'll also find that it is the Bush's responsibility to prove a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam, but would it be the conspiracy-theorists that would need to prove a conspiracy in the last presidential election).

Burden of proof has no bearing on what you choose to believe. But it should help you understand why people who don't believe that every word of the bible is true don't find the argument "it says so in the bible" very convincing. As a matter of fact, since many arguments from scripture are intended to support scripture itself, this is also 'beggin the question'. I don't mind if anyone around here wants to believe every semi-colon in the bible, though they might want to have a long look through an annotated version, to see which words have questionnable translations from the Hebrew and other original languages.

(Did you know there is a strong argument that "Adam" is actually described as a 'human' not a 'man', and that it may have been a 'side' that was taken, not a 'rib' - the ancient languages simply do not make the distinctions clear enough to be certain).

Bugs you might want to have a look at the old, capital-C Church, which maintained a two-fold policy that anything which did not agree with scripture was false, and if it were found to be true, some pice of scripture had to be found that could be interpreted as supporting it. I guess this is a necessary policy if you want to twist the world to fit seamlessly into a few hundred pages of repeatedly translated text. It seems to me the seams are showing quite badly at this point in time...

I also distrust any and all use of the word 'debunked'. It is the word of choice for those who claim to have defeated science to which they are morally opposed. The word is shows up most commonly when attempting to discredit, despite a lack of evidence, the science behind global warming, and evolution. No matter how much you want something to be true (or false), you can't make it be so. A sad example of this was cold fusion, which coincidentally is about the only science I can see describing as 'debunked'. Though it's the subversion of scientific methods I find offensive here, not the science itself.

If the science really was 'bad', correct terms would include discredited, called into question, and even 'fallen into disfavour'. And none of these terms applies to well supported science until some other study comes along and finds significant problems with its principles.

 

[przero]

Klixxer - Is that yes or no?

 

[onelove]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Well now it seems to me someone around here has a sig that includes a link to a page about good argumentation. Since my logic and philosophy courses are a few years behind me now, it was a useful refresher.

I believe you'll find a section on 'burden of proof' which should provide enough theory to show why it is the existence of God that requires proof, logically speaking, not the absence. (You'll also find that it is the Bush's responsibility to prove a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam, but would it be the conspiracy-theorists that would need to prove a conspiracy in the last presidential election).

Burden of proof has no bearing on what you choose to believe. But it should help you understand why people who don't believe that every word of the bible is true don't find the argument "it says so in the bible" very convincing. As a matter of fact, since many arguments from scripture are intended to support scripture itself, this is also 'beggin the question'. I don't mind if anyone around here wants to believe every semi-colon in the bible, though they might want to have a long look through an annotated version, to see which words have questionnable translations from the Hebrew and other original languages.

(Did you know there is a strong argument that "Adam" is actually described as a 'human' not a 'man', and that it may have been a 'side' that was taken, not a 'rib' - the ancient languages simply do not make the distinctions clear enough to be certain).

Bugs you might want to have a look at the old, capital-C Church, which maintained a two-fold policy that anything which did not agree with scripture was false, and if it were found to be true, some pice of scripture had to be found that could be interpreted as supporting it. I guess this is a necessary policy if you want to twist the world to fit seamlessly into a few hundred pages of repeatedly translated text. It seems to me the seams are showing quite badly at this point in time...

I also distrust any and all use of the word 'debunked'. It is the word of choice for those who claim to have defeated science to which they are morally opposed. The word is shows up most commonly when attempting to discredit, despite a lack of evidence, the science behind global warming, and evolution. No matter how much you want something to be true (or false), you can't make it be so. A sad example of this was cold fusion, which coincidentally is about the only science I can see describing as 'debunked'. Though it's the subversion of scientific methods I find offensive here, not the science itself.

If the science really was 'bad', correct terms would include discredited, called into question, and even 'fallen into disfavour'. And none of these terms applies to well supported science until some other study comes along and finds significant problems with its principles.

glad you post here charlie.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Klixxer - Is that yes or no?
-------------------------
When we ask our friends where they want to go for dinner, we can reply 'I asked you first' if they try to turn the question back on us - Unfortunately, this is not a trivial question, and in this case there is no a priori reason to assume god exists, therefore it is up to you to prove that he does.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: przero
Klixxer - Is that yes or no?

No it's a statement that your question is in itself flawed.

I don't expect you to understand it, blind faith requires that you keep your blinders on.

Unless you can prove scientifically that god (and/or the toothfairy or whatever) exists it does not matter.

You see, i could say that god exists but only in my left foot, he is invisible and has no mass, can you scientifically disprove that? Of course you can't, so IOW god lives in my left foot.

Do you get my point, to scientifically disprove something that has not mass or physical form is impossible, no matter what it is.

 

[przero]

I asked a simple question. Now does all this mean no? Or does it mean you are not sure? You see all this scientific "evidence", big bang theory and all, seems to say God doesn't exist. Has science proven that to you?

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: przero
I asked a simple question. Now does all this mean no? Or does it mean you are not sure? You see all this scientific "evidence", big bang theory and all, seems to say God doesn't exist. Has science proven that to you?

I really don't care where we come from, i don't care what happens after i die either, i don't believe in fairy tales though, not in the tooth fairy and not in god.

To me it's quite simple, unless it is scientifically proven (or i can touch, feel or see it), it does not exist.

No, science cannot disprove the existance of god in my left foot or the tooth fairy living under my pillow.

It's impossible to disprove either, it is also impossible to disprove that you are the devil, that does not mean that anyone would believe that, does it?

You do not seem to grasp the fact that science does not strive to disprove anything but to find evidence that supports theories that can become facts.

 

[3chordcharlie]

None of science says anything about whether god exists.

I'll admit to being a sceptic, but I haven't actually discounted god yet; at the moment though I have no plans to look to science for an answer. But even 'given' a god, there would still be no reason not have physics and chemistry, and even a 'big bang'. If you wanted to think biblically, try 'god made man in his image and now we're reaching out to find him' or something to that effect. Even full-blown Creationism would not preclude the possiblity of sorting out, physically, how it happened.

The answer to your question is that it's an inappropriate one that science doesn't claim to be capable of answering, at least not at this time. This will make it particularly difficult for you to meet your burden of proof, should you wish to rationally convince a non-believer that there is in fact a god.

 

[przero]

The proof of the existence of God does not lie in science at all. If you wait for science to prove His existence, you'll die waiting.

 

[3chordcharlie]

The proof of the existence of God does not lie in science at all. If you wait for science to prove His existence, you'll die waiting.

Well I think we all agree on the first part entirely, and the second part more or less. Unfortunately that it does not follow that the proof comes from somewhere else. It certainly can't come from reading a book that He is supposed to have written (see above about begging the question).

It sounds to me like no argument is being made here at all.

 

[przero]

"It certainly can't come from reading a book that He is supposed to have written (see above about begging the question). "

Why?

 

[judasmachine]

creationist: why do you think there isn't a god?

bill hicks: one word; dinosaurs.

creationist: maybe god put them there to test your faith.

bill hicks: you know what, I think god put you here to test my faith.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: przero
The proof of the existence of God does not lie in science at all. If you wait for science to prove His existence, you'll die waiting.

I know, hence the term faith.

You BELIEVE, you do not know.

I don't BELIEVE, i know what is proven.

And we will ALL die waiting for proof either way, so why did you even ask?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Why?
-------------
The trouble is that something can't be both the premise and the conclusion of the same argument.

If you believe that the Bible is written by God, you can't use that as proof of the existence of God, because the existence of God is assumed in order for you to believe that he wrote the Bible.

This problem leads to a lot of confusion between religious (and even scientific!) scholars and the people they try to persuade.

Think of it this way - As someone who does not presuppose the truth of the Bible (though, on a side note, I have read it cover-to-cover more than once), it makes no sense for me to accept a passage from the Bible as proof of itself. So just because the Bible says the people of Israel spent 40 years in the desert does not mean, to me, that they necessarily did so. If I'm not mistaken, there is some archaeological evidence that this and other historical references in the Bible may be accurate, but I'm inclined to believe the archaeological evidence rather than the Bible, should there be disrepancies between the two.

Does this make a little more sense?

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: przero
The proof of the existence of God does not lie in science at all. If you wait for science to prove His existence, you'll die waiting.

I know, hence the term faith.

You BELIEVE, you do not know.

I don't BELIEVE, i know what is proven.

And we will ALL die waiting for proof either way, so why did you even ask?

To be completely honest my problem with the article, and the type of people therein is what they call their 'faith,' which in this case amounts to nothing more than willful ignorance (which is sadly also present here at AT). These biblical literalists refuse to adapt their belief system to accept scientific evidence, which is proven, that it blatantly contradicts. Creationism is valid, but only as a metaphore. As a scientific theory, it does not explain the sheer age of the very rock were're standing on, among many other things; thus invaliding it. The six days of creation can, however, represent 6 major geological events in the known history of earth (creation of earth, creation of life, paleozoic era day, mesozoic era day, the day where he kills all the dinosasurs, then the day he does whatever he did that resulted in us, for example). Science is about one thing: truth. Regardless of one's perceptions of the world, science is reality. A hypothesis goes through extensive testing, analysis, and peer review before it even becomes a theory, let alone a law. Calling creationism a 'theory' is a gross misuse of the word, and an insult to the scientists who devote their lives to further human understanding of god's creation.


*atheist

 

[sMiLeYz]

You religious nuts crack me up.

PcZero, why dont you prove that your god exists? Have you seen him? Has he personally spoken to you, your friends anyone you know?

I don't care, believe in whatever you crackpots want to believe. Don't force your beliefs on me.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Vadatajs

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: przero
The proof of the existence of God does not lie in science at all. If you wait for science to prove His existence, you'll die waiting.

I know, hence the term faith.

You BELIEVE, you do not know.

I don't BELIEVE, i know what is proven.

And we will ALL die waiting for proof either way, so why did you even ask?

To be completely honest my problem with the article, and the type of people therein is what they call their 'faith,' which in this case amounts to nothing more than willful ignorance (which is sadly also present here at AT). These biblical literalists refuse to adapt their belief system to accept scientific evidence, which is proven, that it blatantly contradicts. Creationism is valid, but only as a metaphore. As a scientific theory, it does not explain the sheer age of the very rock were're standing on, among many other things; thus invaliding it. The six days of creation can, however, represent 6 major geological events in the known history of earth (creation of earth, creation of life, paleozoic era day, mesozoic era day, the day where he kills all the dinosasurs, then the day he does whatever he did that resulted in us, for example). Science is about one thing: truth. Regardless of one's perceptions of the world, science is reality. A hypothesis goes through extensive testing, analysis, and peer review before it even becomes a theory, let alone a law. Calling creationism a 'theory' is a gross misuse of the word, and an insult to the scientists who devote their lives to further human understanding of god's creation.


*atheist

You are preaching to the choir here, i was just responding to his question regarding the fact that science cannot disprove god, or ANYTHING that has no mass, shape or form.

*hopeless

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
You religious nuts crack me up.

PcZero, why dont you prove that your god exists? Have you seen him? Has he personally spoken to you, your friends anyone you know?

I don't care, believe in whatever you crackpots want to believe. Don't force your beliefs on me.

Well, he speaks to Bush, THAT should be proof enough for anyone. [/sarc]

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
You religious nuts crack me up.

PcZero, why dont you prove that your god exists? Have you seen him? Has he personally spoken to you, your friends anyone you know?

I don't care, believe in whatever you crackpots want to believe. Don't force your beliefs on me.

Well actually, I was going to say something similar, only tempered a little:

I don't care what you believe in -- the toothfairy, bearded wise men floating around on clouds, whatever -- that's fine and more power to you. Just don't go passing it off as fact.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
You religious nuts crack me up.

PcZero, why dont you prove that your god exists? Have you seen him? Has he personally spoken to you, your friends anyone you know?

I don't care, believe in whatever you crackpots want to believe. Don't force your beliefs on me.

Well actually, I was going to say something similar, only tempered a little:

I don't care what you believe in -- the toothfairy, bearded wise men floating around on clouds, whatever -- that's fine and more power to you. Just don't go passing it off as fact.

I'll go one step further and say: don't say you are morally superior to me because of it (because i have seen this far to often).

 

[Painman]

Originally posted by: Albert Einstein
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.

Hooray for Deism - science as a looking glass focused upon the truth manifested by the Universe, with its galaxies, nebulas, supernovas, black holes, stars, planets, dinosaurs, orchids, bombardier beetles, lichens, amoebas, protons, electrons and neutrons. And a bunch of tribes of men, running around on this moistened rock, orbiting some nondescript star in some nondescript galaxy, killing each other trying to prove the superiority of each others' collectively accepted, "revealed" interpretations of this truth.

As for me, I will accept no man's interpretation of the Universe's "truth" but my own, nor will I impose my vision of it upon anyone else. Embrace whatever you want, whether it's a higher being/meaning, or nothing at all. Just don't ram it down my throat, and we'll get along fine.

Another quote I like, that I saw around here recently:

Originally posted by: Thomas Jefferson
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Vadatajs

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: przero
The proof of the existence of God does not lie in science at all. If you wait for science to prove His existence, you'll die waiting.

I know, hence the term faith.

You BELIEVE, you do not know.

I don't BELIEVE, i know what is proven.

And we will ALL die waiting for proof either way, so why did you even ask?

To be completely honest my problem with the article, and the type of people therein is what they call their 'faith,' which in this case amounts to nothing more than willful ignorance (which is sadly also present here at AT). These biblical literalists refuse to adapt their belief system to accept scientific evidence, which is proven, that it blatantly contradicts. Creationism is valid, but only as a metaphore. As a scientific theory, it does not explain the sheer age of the very rock were're standing on, among many other things; thus invaliding it. The six days of creation can, however, represent 6 major geological events in the known history of earth (creation of earth, creation of life, paleozoic era day, mesozoic era day, the day where he kills all the dinosasurs, then the day he does whatever he did that resulted in us, for example). Science is about one thing: truth. Regardless of one's perceptions of the world, science is reality. A hypothesis goes through extensive testing, analysis, and peer review before it even becomes a theory, let alone a law. Calling creationism a 'theory' is a gross misuse of the word, and an insult to the scientists who devote their lives to further human understanding of god's creation.


*atheist

You are preaching to the choir here, i was just responding to his question regarding the fact that science cannot disprove god, or ANYTHING that has no mass, shape or form.

*hopeless

Science does not 'disprove,' rather it proves something else is true. It's not an attack on peoples' beliefs, it's the honest search for facts. That's what these literalists can't seem to understand (or don't want to).