Printable View
Well, some people have flamed me for bashing Xianity. They asked "Why are u obssesed?!", etc. I will answer that now:
1. Xianity is the world's most popular religion.
2. It is the main religion foccused on here.
3. I question it, so what? Fundies *DENY* science. And i question a releigion, so what? If you can't answer me, then please... DONT COMMENT AT ALL.
kthnxbye.
-TGWS
Well you do seem a little obsessed but whatever floats your boat. Even think of why it's the most popular religion? I don't deny science, I deny theories.
This seems to be a trend on these boards.
[edit everything]
On second thought, no. As annoying as your issues are, they aren't worth any more of my concern. Its just a shame you happen to be the way you are, and i'll leave it at that.
Besides the Way siesmo does it, complaining about how Christianity is 'attacked' more than other religions is just retarded. 90% of believers here are Christians. Fact. And the 8% that are agnostic, don't provide much discussion, they don't have redicoulous facts or dogma's like Christians have. And the 2% of Muslims or Satanists or whatever that Do show their face around here, get owned as much as the next Christian.
Stop whining.
Your holy book sucks.
-
Oh, and also, since siesmo probably is an inhabitant of America, or another country that is ruled in a FAR to theocratic way, he has any right to voice his opinion and dislike for the wide-spread contagious form of retardation called that religion, and in his case Christianity, is.
:boogie:
Waite for Universal Mind. He never tires.
1. Xianity is the world's most popular religion.
Your source of credibility please.
I'm not denying your claim. :)
Neuro, I'm not Christian, and atheism isn't science.
When did it become cool to insult Christians by using an "X" instead of the word "Christ?"
Here's a pie chart (can't deny the pie) that was compiled in 2005:Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
Keep in mind, however, that MANY religions fall under the generic title "Christianity".
EDIT: Wiki. (Also 2005)
Are you kidding me?
Well it makes obvious sense now.
I really did mean it when I asked about Xianity, not realizing it was Christianity.
I agree SilverZeor
I keep mistaken you for someone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethen
Also, I think Atheism and Science are similar. okay, I did mixed them together a bit to much in my post. I think they have the same origin however: Thought and observation. That is where Atheism comes from in places where it does not (publicly) exist. And it is also the base of science.
Atheism may not BE science but, as Neuro pointed out, it's much akin to science. A view that's detached from religious dogma promotes analytical thinking and unbiased observation. Religion, on the other hand, is the antithesis of science in many ways, primarily by discouraging realistic, logical pursuits of truth and causation.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethen
Religion bases its teachings on the premise that certain things are explained only by supernatural means and, as such, no further exploration is needed because there's nothing more that can be learned. Atheism - or science, as it were - is built on the foundation that everything can be explained by natural means if only we had the body of knowledge to reach the proper conclusions.
So, science (or as you classify it, atheism) is actually the route to higher learning and progression of technology and many other Human endeavours. In my opinion, science and religion can actually co-exist, if only the religious zealots would admit the limitations of faith with respect to actual knowledge and learning. Faith is a great confidence booster (making an individual better than before) but science is the key to Human greatness.
No you see, science promotes analytical thinking and unbiased observations…when it comes to the physical reality that is. Beyond that, philosophy takes the place of science. But atheism, as it’s commonly understood, seems to be a perversion of science and I’ll explain why.
First and foremost, atheism is seen as being more than a belief system (by way of association). However, it isn’t actually science for the simple fact that it doesn’t adhere to the same rigid standards/processes that are required of something, in order for that something to be considered legitimate science. In short, atheism is a scientifically unsubstantiated offshoot of science that is often misinterpreted as science.
At best, atheism is a philosophy that is based on science. And even still, it has its fair share of problems. Consider the nature of science. Science is intrinsically limited to the physical reality. By nature, it cannot observe, study, or explain anything beyond the physical reality, assuming supernatural existences.
Atheism not only refuses this assumption (which is fine in itself) but it goes as far as to assume otherwise (which is as valid as the contrary assumption). But, the reason atheism does this is because of a lack of empirical (or physical) evidence supporting supernatural existences. As you can see, the reasoning behind this logic is somewhat skewed because atheists are trying to use a strictly physical method of observation to debunk something “outside” of the physical reality, and thus outside of the reach of science (and likely our comprehension all together). Obviously that last part doesn't compliment religion either, but nevertheless, science is non-applicable to anything supernatural and it therefore cannot be used to prove/disprove anything of the sort, either way.
And even still, only a slim fraction of atheists are scientists anyway…and those that are work in specialized fields. No one man, be him atheist or otherwise, could possible test and observe all that would be necessary to justify atheistic beliefs solely using empirical evidence. In fact, even if one person had replicated every single experiment ever done in the field of science, that still wouldn’t be enough to empirically prove the absence of God because 1.) Science is unable to observe or study that which is beyond the physical to begin with and 2.) The absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence…unless you get to the point where you have proven everything (physical) there is to prove.
And even in the event of scenario #2, that still only speaks for the physical reality.
I agree with that, ethen. It seemed at first that science and atheism were being treated here as though they were the same, which is why I said what I did. I only hinted at their not being the same thing in my last post when maybe I should have explicitly stated that.
I do agree with your last post though. Atheism is a belief system. Science is a system of testing beliefs. That's the difference between science and any religion.
...You deny THEORIES? So... You don't believe in the theory of gravitation? The Theory of Relativity? Heh, i'll bet you don't know what a scientific theory is. You obviously confuse "Theory" and "Guess". A scientific theory ISN'T just a random jumble of guesswork and no proofs. Here, i found a video that can explain this:Quote:
Originally Posted by homer2020
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k
This is just funny :chuckle:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bMEkCHU2K...elated&search=
Let me ask you, are you Atheist, agnostic or religious yourself?Quote:
Originally Posted by ethen
As for your point, I never said Atheism Was Science. I don't see why you even make your sig into a link to that post of yours, there never was disagreement. I still stay with my point that Atheism is a standpoint derived from science. It isn't science. No theory, except for mathematical ones, that says "x=x" is purely scientific. There are only theories. However, I don't see why the atheistic theory would be less 'scientific' than lets say the theory of relativity, or lets say the theory of quantum mechanics. What makes the difference, is idiots believing in it blindly, and not fully understanding it. But some pre-evolution idiots also don't really get it, and ruin the conversation. That does not mean evolution isn't a valid theory.
Basically, the Atheistic theory is build upon science, or at least looked at with a scientific view, one of observation and rationality, unlike religions that are build upon ancient scriptures and people (parents, preachers) sharing their beliefs without testing it.
The only thing I do have to say, and I think this is what you mean all along, is that Atheism CAN be a blind faith, like religions can. Once you stop seeing atheism as a (very likely) theory, and start seeing it as a infallible fact, your beliefs are no longer scientifically valid. As are Christians/Muslims that believe with 100% certainty.
Still. Atheism is a perfectly fine scientific theory. It can be as scientific as the M-theory, or the theory of dark matter and gravitons. However, in reality, often Atheism isn't seen and Implemented by atheists as a theory, but seen and used as a belief system. Still, that doesn't make it scientifically wrong to believe in Atheism, as it isn't (scientifically) wrong to believe (as long as it isn't absolute belief, and I doubt few atheists are absolutists) in gravity, electrons, radiation, Until proven differently.
Religion and science are not mutually exclusive and personally I find your gross generalizations ridiculous. "Religion" is a blanket term and so you can't possibly make claims about its teachings with any validity. As for atheism being akin to science; thats just absurd. Science is about exploring possibilities, whereas atheism is about denying possibilities. To me, atheism is the antithesis of science, not theism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaught
...Because Atheism is built on logic & proof, as is science. Not blind faith. Therefore it CAN (Sorta) be a religion, and be scientific (But i never classify Atheism as religion).Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
But atheism asserts there is no God. How can one know that there is no God, unless s/he knows all things? What is your proof that God does not exist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
Does it matter, or are you just curious?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
I agree, but so to is intelligent design by that standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
Except that empirical evidence of its validity exists, whereas atheism, when all I said and done, is simply conjecture based off of a lack of evidence to the contrary. That’s a fundamental difference between a scientific theory and a philosophical idea. In fact, if conjecture based off a lack of scientific evidence to the contrary is what makes a theory “scientific”, then technically the idea of a creator is just as “scientific” as atheism, seeing as neither is actually contradicted by science. (Science doesn’t make supernatural claims, it simply can’t by nature). But as you can see, science doesn’t work that way. It doesn’t assume something is right because they have no proof of it being wrong, and atheism is no exception.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
Yes, and it most often is because, at least from what I have seen, atheists tend to equivocate their non-theistic beliefs with the objectivity of science (if not completely than partially), which then is often coupled with the idea that science is a discipline of certainty, neither of which is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
No, it’s a perfectly fine theory. However, there is nothing more “scientific” about it than any other theory assumed to be true because there is no proof of a contradiction. If you wish, I could give you examples demonstrating this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
The fact is that you cannot prove something by default, be it for or against the existence of a Creator (or anything for that matter). Either claim requires actual, factual evidence in order for it to be scientific, and neither has this. Period.
I’m sorry but this simply isn’t true, and happens to demonstrate why I feel atheism is a perversion of science. Those theories are scientific because scientific evidence exists in their favor (be it mathematical or otherwise). This is a given for any scientific theory. However, there is no existing evidence supporting atheism because atheism is based off certain evidence not existing. This may have philosophical merit, but it’s scientifically erroneous. There is nothing scientific about assuming something to be true by default, which is exactly what atheism does. And ironically, this is exactly how atheists use science against theists. Talk about a double-edged sword...Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
Tell me, what do you call a theory that is based off of non-existent evidence? I call it faith, and atheists seem to also. However, atheism by nature its based off of non-existent evidence also, that being lack of proof to the contrary (that god exists).
Atheism is double-standard at heart. All it needs to be true is that there isn’t proof otherwise (that there is proof of a God). However, for that same exact reason, atheists refuse to accept theism. I mean, both claim to be substantiated in the same way, that being by default. Neither thinks there need be any more self-substanation, so long as its opposite is not substantiated.
...
http://forums.wtf.com/images/smilies/bs.gif
No its not, its built off of a lack of proof to the contrary, that being the existence of god. Science can't debunk anything supernatural because it's strictly a natural/physical method of observation and study. This makes any supernatural belief, be it for or against the existence of a God, something beyond what science can prove/disprove much less observe or study.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
And even if the notion of a Creator was within the grasp of sceince, which it isnt, you still cannot prove something wrong by lacking evidence. Thats just one of those limitations of science, and anyone with a grounded understanding of the discipline knows and accepts this.
Hey Ethen, since you keep asking me why i am "Obsessed" with Xianity, can you tell me why you are adamant about Atheism being "Unscientific"?
It is logical to me. So, that is how i look at the universe. Besides, if god made us special, where the hell is he?Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverZero
Because it gives science a bad name.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
Besides you don't see me going around making dozens of topics simply to degrade atheism and/or to harass its followers. The only people I do that to are those who do it to others, like yourself, and even still I am not consumed by it as you are. Im just giving people like you a little taste of your own medicine for a change.
Well, if he is a supernatural being and we are imprisioned in the natural world, how could we see him if he did exist? It would be like a character in a video game asking the same questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
"if there is a creator to all of this, where is he?"
"I dont see a creator anywhere in this world. All there seems to be are these laws that govern everything (man-made program) and nothing else. Therefore there is no creator."
In fact, only way such a character could attempt to prove the existence of the creator is to philosophize about where those laws ultimately came from, because no matter how hard this virtual-person could study its surroundings, there is no way he could "prove" anything beyond the program he is trapped in. It would all have to be speculation, either way.
? ROFL. I made topics to attempt to educate ppl, and ask questions about their religion. If i flame it is because i am annoyed.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethen
(I'm mostly annoyed because:
1. My questions are not answered
2. A flame-war starts because no one can agree)
Well how the hell did we get the bible? And religion, If we can't detect him? Do you see the flawed logic there?Quote:
Originally Posted by ethen
Oh give me a break. You do not do it to educate people, you do it to demean those who feel differently than yourself. And it doesn't take a genius to see it, either. The condesending way you write about it, the "loaded" things you say, it all blanatly obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
The only flawed logic here is the way you equivocate the philosophy of Creationism with a specific examples of creationism. I agree with your point, however, but I was not talking about Christianity or even religion. I was simply refering to the general notion that something may have created us, eventhough there seemingly is no physical evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
Ok, can we break away from the whole "Is there a creator?" thing? I would like to know hy we need a creator. Why? What is his purpose? Why couldn't we come about by chance? Why did there have to be an invisible magic man for life to happen? Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by ethen
There is absolutely not a single shred of proof that points towards atheism. If I'm wrong then show it to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
None of this makes it any less pathetic, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
The real question is "can you"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
We don't "need" a creator in order for one to exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
Who says he has to have a purpose? You seem pretty content in thinking we don't, apply that same logic to a creator.
We could have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
There doesn't. But that doesn't mean there isn't one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
Hows that for answering your questions?
Well CLEARLY you have some fucked up half-ass religious ideas, otherwise you would have just told me you were atheist. What Are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by ethen
Also, according to your reasoning, it would be unscientific to say harry potter is Not real, since it is based on Lack of evidence instead of 'normal' (and somehow better in your world-view) evidence. Or not believing in Unicorns would be unscientific. Really think about what you are saying.
If you want to believe that to make yourself feel better, that's fine.
You can't deny that non-belief, assuming there is not a god in your reasoning, is as scientific as it gets. Assuming there is no god does not mean blind atheism. There just isn't enough proof to be both a rational, scientific person and believe (-and belief in a god often is absolute(!)-) in a god.
So I'm either an athiest or someone with fucked up half-assed beliefs? Clearly your response justified my suspicions. I didn’t tell you what my beliefs were because I had a feeling you were trying to pigeonhole me as this or that... as if “what I am” impacts the validity of the points I was making.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
I’m agnostic, by the way. Nice to meet you :roll:
Exactly (as “off” as that may sound). I never said doubting the existence of Harry Potter or unicorns was unreasonable, but it is unscientific for the simple fact that such beliefs aren’t substantiated by the scientific method. What is so hard to understand about that? Science is a method of knowing. That which isn’t known by way of this method isn’t scientific, plain and simple. It may be reasonable, it may be correct, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s scientific.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
Your understanding of "science" seems to be bleeding over into concepts which shouldn't be confused with science. For example, though science may be rational in its method, that which is rational isn't necessarily scientific. Something can be rational, and yet completely hypothetical at the same time.
I’m glad you said that because it gives me a chance to expose the twisted logic underneath your arguments. Let me start from the beginning:Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
On the contrary, I can because it isn’t. The epitome of science isn’t assuming something doesn’t exist because we don’t currently have scientific evidence proving it. In fact, that’s not scientific at all. If it were, then science would never learn anything new (or anything at all) because it would be “perfectly scientific” to just deny the existence of anything that didn’t already have proof. In fact, such a mentality is exactly what science is against.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
The only exception I can think of is if science comes to explain every phenomenon there is, in which case something could be disproved by process of elimination. But tryng to disprove something doing anything short of that is untrue to the scientific method, and even still, there are serious issues involved in attaining this hypothetical situation.
Well according to atheism, assuming anything without scientific substantiation is a matter of faith, regardless of what. I wouldn’t necessarily say “blind” faith, but it sure as hell isn’t a matter of fact either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
It disturbs me that you feel this way. First of all, science is inherently limited to the physical domain, and cannot speak for or against that which may be “beyond” that because such things are simply outside that domain, its means of observation/study, and thus its authority. After all, it’s only reasonable to acknowledge that something which may not be empirical in nature, in turn, may not have empirical evidence of its existence. In fact, it’s unreasonable to assume otherwise…which is exactly what atheism does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
Secondly, logic can be applied to more than that which is “empirical”. Speaking of which, the discipline of “logic” itself is a sub-sect of philosophy, and not science (go figure). Considering these two factors, it’s completely possible for a person to be a perfectly rational scientist and still have reasonably-sound philosophical beliefs regarding the supernatural…so long as such beliefs are understood for what they are; beliefs.
I do have a lot of bitterness toward Christianity, but not toward individual Christians who act like decent people. Christianity is hugely important in my society and my history, and it has done a lot of bad. I think it has really screwed a lot of people up, and it scared the Hell out of me when I was a kid. It has caused a lot of prejudice in my society and been used as a big excuse and cover for a lot of evil people. It also has seeped into my government and kept my favorite drugs and prostitues illegal. However, I don't have bitterness toward individuals for being Christian as long as they don't try to impose their religion on me. I don't mind them talking to me about it, and I even invite that in places like this, but shoving it down my throat is a different story. Some of the greatest people in the world are Christian, and I don't think Christianity alone is enough to make somebody an evil, nosy snob. So I don't feel the need to attack anybody personally just for being a Christian. But you will probably never catch me taking up for the religion itself. I very much hope it goes away. The sooner the better. No offense.
What bollocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Seriously, the amount of things that were taken as (literal) gospel that have been debunked, disproven and generally laughed out of normal beliefs points towards most holy books being complete mumbo jumbo.
In fact, when you think about it, most religious people in this world are completely deluded. That is, if one of the religions is true, then the other ones are false; the majority of the religious on this planet are therefore wrong. (Though I suspect that no religion is true and that ALL religious people are wrong)
While, on the other hand, there is NO evidence that any deities exist. No evidence whatsoever.
I agree, which is why I tend to dislike the "fundie" attitude. Literal meaning is not supposed be how parables work, I don't think. It would be like reading Hansel and Gredel and missing the underlying moral of the story, but clinging on to the notion that there actually are witches with gingerbread houses complete with magic ovens that can turn kids into cookies.Quote:
Originally Posted by wannywan
I agree that the "my religion is right, therefore your religion is wrong" mentality isn't helping religion. However, aside from the details, most modern day religions seems to have the same basic principles at heart. And some of these principles I ascribe to, though not for religious reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by wannywan
This is true. However, that doesn't make atheism scientifically substantiated by default. Nothing is scientifically substantiated by default without assuming something beyond what is substantiated. Though it may be reasonable (and practical) to assume that something which has no evidence probably doesn't exist, that mentality isn't scientific. Science is designed to question assumptions like that, which is how it is able to evolve like it does. Science always leaves room for the unknown.Quote:
Originally Posted by wannywan
I generally agree with what you're saying, though I would argue that atheism is the scientifically correct position in the case of evidence-less claims of supernatural deities.
However, you are correct, science does leave open the possibility that deities can exist. Whether they are in the form of our planets religious interpretations, or as something we cannot even begin to imagine, the possibility (however infinitesimal) is still there.
At this time, atheism is closer than agnosticism as a description of how to properly see the universe. In time, maybe we will see (somehow) that the chance of a deity existing rises and that we would not be able to fully comprehend it (as it is so abstract), in which case agnosticism is closer to the mark.
As it is, agnosticism doesn't work when applied to deities of human cultures, as it is easy to see that they have been invented in times of relative ignorance, their holy powers have been explained properly, their holy books turned into compendiums of contradictions and inaccuracies and they have been basically reasoned out of existence.
However, again, agnosticism is the only valid outlook when discussing hypothetical deities that could or could not exist.
What seems to happen is that as soon as you discredit YHWH of the Bible, the goalposts shift and you find yourself having to discredit a being that bears little, if any, similarity to everyone's favourite sky-daddy. When this happens, yes, agnosticism is the only sane reasoning.
How can you discredit the thought that a deity that flits in and out of time and space randomly from its home outside of the known universe? You obviously can't, but it is very easy to discredit a deity who acts like a petulant child and has glaring errors in his perfect book, like pi being equal to three. What is especially annoying is that many people see these as the same character, a deity who can create the universe and defy laws of space and time, yet simultaneously have the comparative general knowledge of an average desert-tribesman from around 3000 years ago.
I too take some of the 'core principles' from religions for unreligious reasons. I think it's maybe because religions took their principles from 'core principles' of early man.
The fact that evidence for god can be disproven in no way stands as evidence that there is no god. Like I said, show me one single shred of proof that there is no god and I will recant.Quote:
Originally Posted by wannywan
If God could prove himself then there would be no need for religion, because then there would be no faith.
The fact that the evidence for a deity can be disproven does stand as evidence there isn't a deity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
If you would care to show me how it is you expect anyone to prove there are no deities, then I would be glad to help in this impossible task. I may also add that I challenge you to prove there are no Flying Spaghetti Monsters.
You simply cannot prove a negative, whereas disproving a positive (the claim that a deity exists) is easily done.
Yes, this is basically my point when it comes to the "science" atheism. Athiesm as a philosophy or belief system is perfectly fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by wannywan
Ethen is totally correct. The question of whether God exists or not doesn't have anything to do with science. If you have this thesis: "God exists", then, in order to prove that it is either false or true, you would have to be able to conduct experiments to prove either. This would imply that "God exists" has any relevance for our physical universe and that you could make predictions on the implications for our physical universe. There is no such experiment. Even if you presuppose that God exists, how are you to make any predictions on his effects on our world? You would have to be able to somehow analyze Him and form precise conditions that would have to be met when He is interacting with the world. The whole point, then, is that God is unpredictable. The same goes for presupposing that God does not exist. How are you to prove something if it could exist without having an impact on our world? It's outside of the scientific world view but this does not imply that it's non-existing.
To mix religion with science is to miss the whole point of religion. I'm not religious myself but I have absolutely no problem with religious people as long as they accept that religion and rationality can only coexist peacefully so long as they are not mixed together and as long as this person does not mean to imply that his beliefs have an impact on the facts of life. If you believe in something, like when you're an atheist and you believe that there is no God, then that's cool but don't get it all messed up and build connections with rationality, science or facts.
And by the method of falsification, a theory can be said to be "true" as long as there is no evidence that debunks it. And in this context "true" means "latest scientific knowledge". It's not true in the sense of being undebunkable.
Sure, you can't prove that God does or doesn't exist. However, you CAN prove that most of the kinds of things theists routinely attribute to God are nothing more than natural occurrences that happen by natural means and forces. That's where the atheists rely on science (with provable, tangible evidence) and the theists rely on blind faith (no evidence other than circumstantial and anecdotal).
Yes, but in a proximate manner. The real question is "what is the ultimate origin of natural occurances and nature itself?" Maybe in finding the answer to this, we will discover the "fingerprints" of a creator...or maybe we won't. I just don't see a point in completely dismissing the possibility at this point in time. We are still very much in the dark when it comes to that kind of a question, and in my opinion, if god is going to be found anywhere in this universe, it would be there... at the base of it all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaught
But needless to say, we have a long way to go before we can cross that bridge. In the mean time, I like to leave room for the unknown. After all, redefining what's possible is what science does. It just takes time, patience, and insatiable curiosity. Science shouldn't let anything get in the way of that, be it theism or athiesm.
And yet you still fail to disprove the existence of a deity.Quote:
Originally Posted by wannywan
A multiple step proof that God does not exist:
http://www.mrelativity.net/Equations/Equations.htm
If you have any questions, please refer to the page.
Believe it or not, I agree with that. I also believe that the existence of a God is fundamentally unprovable. Which means that it's equally as impossible to prove the non-existence theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethen
My point is simply that most things that most religions teach to be the work of their God has already been proven otherwise. On superficial levels at least. Therefor, I see much more evidence leaning away from theological teachings than could ever be found to support it. It seems the only support for the God model is the unknown. To me, "the unknown" doesn't prove anything. It's merely the unexplored horizons that may hold any answer imaginable.
How, in your opinion, do the equations behind the theory of relativity prove the non-existence of god?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
The answers are in there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
And the goalposts shift again.
First you ask me to prove there's no deity. Now you ask for me to disprove the existence of a deity.
Which is it?
Very true.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethen
Though my personal view is that atheism is the absolute disbelief in documented deities, as in man made gods that have whole religions made up about them.
A creator that we haven't found (can't find out about, because of our level of technology etc.) yet falls outside this category in my opinion.
Those are the same things, son.Quote:
Originally Posted by wannywan
I guess this is supposed to be some kind of (not so) clever joke...Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Showing your ignorance doesn't make you right. (...and son? Try not to be so condescending, if you're really old enough to call me son, then you should be ashamed at your ignorance, on the other hand if you are not old enough to call me son, then don't bother.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
OK here's a child's example of how proving a negative and disproving a positive work:
Claim: There's an invisible elephant in the room that can't be perceived in any way. This elephant also made the room from nothing (Sound familiar?)
OK, to prove the negative (there is definitely no elephant) I can say, "I can see there's obviously no Elephant in the room." But what of other rooms in a multi-verse, have I checked them? Maybe my eyes can't see this elephant for whatever reason. Maybe I'll have to wait forever and the elephant will appear spontaneously somewhere down the line. Yadda yadda yadda point is, I can't conclusively say there's no elephant in the room.
To disprove the positive (there is no reason to believe that the elephant exists) I can say, "Well, there is the evidence that the elephant didn't make the room (point at evidence for a contractor making the room). This will make me doubt any other claim about said elephant. Also I can see no evidence that supports an elephant making and inhabiting this room, therefore there is probably not an invisible elephant in the room."
Do you see the difference?
If it's a yes, then your comments earlier don't make sense, if it's a no, then your comments after this won't make sense.
Will you people please learn to use the multi-quote button instead of making a separate post for each quote you respond to?
Hint
Awwww, did something as simple as Einstein's theory of relativity go over your head? :cry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Since when does the theory of relativity disprove the existence of god? :shock:
lmao
I think he's making the point that God would have killed Einstein if he had found out that Einstein was intending to blow the cover off of the mechanisms of his greatest creation. I mean, I'd be pretty pissed if someone would just go ahead and analyze the greatest piece of art I ever made. God would be pissed too. Einstein published his theory safely, thus God does not exist.
For the sake of his dignity, I hope that that was not what he meant.
I want somebody to tell me how the relativity equations don't prove the nonexistence of God. I see people asking how they do, but I am asking you to tell me how they don't. You need to start by explaining what the equations mean and explain a summary of the proof. If you can't do that, then you can't argue and the proof that God does not exist still stands.
He was making the point that we know how the world works, we don't need god just advance physics and mathematics. Put it this way, god doesn't hold us to the ground, matter bending spacetime does.Quote:
For the sake of his dignity, I hope that that was not what he meant.
What three people?Quote:
only three people in the world understand and calling it proof of God's nonexistence.
Seriously, this better be a joke. Lots of people understand Einstein, look at every university degree in physics and Einstein theory of general relativity is on it.
Who said anything about three people?Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
Quote:
Last edited by Universal Mind : Today at 05:08 PM.
Well, atleast you change your post to make it correct. Seriously, you redeemed yourself. Since everyone would assume I am incorrect and that you didn't mention about only three people understand Einstein work. However, you edited your post.Quote:
Who said anything about three people?
To be honest, I don't think you understand the theory well enough to back that claim up, which is why you refuse to explain yourself. And I also believe that you are banking on the fact that others do not suffiently understand the equation either, meaning you think you can claim whatever you want (be it true of false) and assert that its true because we can't explain the equation good enough to debunk the assertion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
But you forget that the burden of proof in on the person making the claim, and you claim that this equation disproves the existence of god. So far, I haven't actually made the claim that the equation doesn't disprove god, I merely asked how it did (which is asking a question, not stating a claim).
And even if someone did claim that the equation doesn't disprove the existence of God, obviously they did this after you made the initial claim, meaning that, in either case, you need to substantiate your claim for such a claim to be considered true. This is the exact same flaw atheism is based off of, and this is one more example of why its a flaw.
So if you want to play that game, so be it. On the contrary, the theory of relativity actually proves that a creator exists. And until you can prove it otherwise, then this proof of God's existence stands. :roll:
All science has been able to do so far is explain how/why certain phenomena are natural occurances. But, it hasn't been able to tackle the question of the ultimate nature of "nature", which is why science is far from debunking the notion of a creator, assuming science is even able debunk that which is beyound its means to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
Stop making stuff up.Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
:uhm: Are you sure about that?Quote:
Originally Posted by ethen
Let me guess, this is the part where you tell me to prove that claim in a "clever" attempt to dodge your own responcibility, yet in so doing, unintentionally proving my point for me, by asserting it's truth against me, and thus putting yourself right back in the hot seat without even knowing it.
Am I close?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_EverythingQuote:
which is why science is far from debunking the notion of a creator, assuming science is even able debunk that which is beyound its means to begin with.
When we know the theory of everything, if god is not in that theory then we can assume it doesn't exsist. Like if we searched a room at every possible location and found no missing boy, it is safer to say that boy is not in the room. Now change search with theory and room with everything and boy with god, once we have the theory of everything it safe to say that god does not exsist.
Saying that I think your right brain can't understand it, do you agree Universal Mind. Note it is a joke.
Proof of God will never exist, and thats the way it is supposed to be.
Example: Christ claimed to be able to move mountains with his faith, even if you had faith the size of a mustard seed (most people are familiar with this passage)
Well, what was stopping him from moving mountains? Surely people would not doubt He was the Son of God if he moved a fucking mountian.
There is a reason God doesn't pop out of the sky and say "Y Helloh thar! I am God!" You aren't going to understand God unless you excersize faith, and you will never find God unless you search.
If the religious think they can prove God (creationism "science") then they missed the point of what they are trying to prove. If atheism only looks for evidence, then they have no faith, and thus will never find God. God gives us hints all around us, but never undisputed proof. It's just not the point of God, arguing about it is exhausting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
All the T.O.E. claims to do is link all know natural phenomena together. But, it doesn't make a claim regarding the ultimate origins of nature itself. The TOE simply doesn't go that far. Or in other words, it attempts to create an all-emcompassing "web" of science explaining everything in that web, but not the web itself. And in addition to this, the TOE is strictly physical, meaning anything supernatural would be outside of this physical web anways, no matter how complete and "seemless" the web may seem to be.
All the theory of everything can do, as best, is show there is a web. It can't, however, explain why that web "is".
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethen
I already showed the formal proof that God does not exist. I haven't seen anybody disprove the theory of relativity yet.
Not to any more of an extent than what I have done using the same theory, but asserting the opposite claim.
This is totally wrong. If the TOE was discovered it would explain how it caim to be. Like how gravity explains how gravity caim to be i.e. gravity comes from matter. Your second question seems abit silly, say we have a TOE and that explain everything why were here e.t.c. Now someone comes along and says where is god, you could claim he is supernatural, however that like claiming god holds us to the ground even though we know that gravity holds us to the ground. If we know everything i.e. the TOE then it would be pointless saying their is a god as we know everything and can explain everything without him.Quote:
All the T.O.E. claims to do is link all know natural phenomena together. But, it doesn't make a claim regarding the ultimate origins of nature itself. The TOE simply doesn't go that far. Or in other words, it attempts to create an all-emcompassing "web" of science explaining everything in that web, but not the web itself. And in addition to this, the TOE is strictly physical, meaning anything supernatural would be outside of this physical web anways, no matter how complete and "seemless" the web may seem to be.
So if I were to claim that God exists, the burden of proof would be on me to prove it and not on the nonbelievers to disprove it?Quote:
Originally Posted by ethen
So you are saying that the TOE can explain the ultimate origins of the universe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
If such a claim was a scientific one, then yes. You cannot scientifically prove that something doesn't exist (I can explain further if you would like). All you can do is prove that something does exist, and in some cases, doing that disproves a contradictory claim as a result. But nothing has yet been proven that contradict the notion of a creator, and theorectically nothing can because proof is strictly physical, and there is a theorectical possibility that a creator could be supernatural in nature.
Yes it can.Quote:
So you are saying that the TOE can explain the ultimate origins of the universe?
http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/time.htm
If Hawkings imaginary time theory is true then we know the origins of the universe. Note: Imaginary meaning complex number, not imaginary meaning made up.
And when we know what happens at a singularity we would know how the universe was started.
I don't know about "supposed to be" but, that's certainly the way it is and probably always will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
Good question. What IS stopping him? He was God's lil' squirt, after all. Out of one side of the "believers'" mouths, they claim how God wants every one to believe. Then, out of the other side, the believers claim (by demonstrating - as you just did - how easily he could prove his own existence) that he doesn't have a need to prove his existence. That just doesn't makes sense. And this is why:Quote:
Well, what was stopping him from moving mountains? Surely people would not doubt He was the Son of God if he moved a fucking mountian.
How is "believing" and "having faith" going to make you "understand God"? Understanding comes from being exposed to facts and being able to study said facts. Faith is NOT facts - and therefor - faith doesn't make some one understand, only believe. Faith may allow some one to believe but, believing is NOT the same thing as understanding or even knowing.Quote:
There is a reason God doesn't pop out of the sky and say "Y Helloh thar! I am God!" You aren't going to understand God unless you excersize faith, and you will never find God unless you search.
But, you see, that's the beauty of science. Science doesn't care if you believe or not. Faith does not effect the outcome of science. Likewise, science does not effect one's ability to have faith. What science does is give that potential faith something to focus on, rather than just shooting for the moon and hoping something hits its target. Science tells us WHAT to have faith in because it provides for knowing what is and isn't real.Quote:
If atheism only looks for evidence, then they have no faith, and thus will never find God. God gives us hints all around us, but never undisputed proof.
The body of facts that exist tell us that there are no unicorns. That's science. Science may be wrong but that doesn't mean we should default to the belief that unicorns do exist. Quite the contrary, we should default to knowing that unicorns do not exist unless science somehow proves that they do. You see, science allows for a change in perspective as new evidence is presented: faith does not. Religion is based in dogma, not an ever-evolving web of information. Dogma does not allow for new evidence to be absorbed into the body of knowledge because new knowledge shakes the foundations and renders outdated faith null and void.
I don't say any of this to try to prove anything either way. I only think it's important to understand that the religious front is on far shakier ground than its non-religious counterpart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
IF that theory is true, then perhaps it can explain the universe. However, the same could be said about creationism IF that were true also. "If" is not proof until verified as such, and Im pretty sure this hasn't happend yet.
Nevertheless, even if natural laws are ultimately shown to be "auto-originating", there are still only three options regarding the ultimate origins of the universe. 1.) the universe came of out of nothingness, 2.) the universe was created by something beyond itself, or 3.) it is infinite.
This theory falls under #1 in the sense that the universe created itself, therfore implying that there was only nothingness prior to this event. But the universe popping out of nothingness only seems to compliment the idea that the universe came from something supernatural, and does #2 and arguably # 3 as well.
Oneironaught
Re-read my post, you are missing my point and obviously don't understand what I am trying to say. If you still don't get it I will lay it out even clearer to you.
You are saying that to be proven is "just not the point of God". True, the point of God is to give believers something "to believe in", to give them hope and something to lean on in the tough times. But my point is that if God wants people to believe - and God is all-powerful - then why would God play mind games instead of just showing the skeptics once and for all that they are wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
I think you need to learn more about Christianity (assuming that is what we are talking about here) to get that question answered, because that is somewhat fundamental. So I will just tell you what I personally believe.
God's goal isn't to prove himself. God's goal is to reveal Himself, and you can only have God reveal Himself to you when you seek. If you make it your lifelong goal to prove how God doesn't exist then that very much will be your reality and that is very much the reality that God wants you to have in order to understand him. Like I said, God isn't going to part the clouds and then press his giant holy man tits against the glass dome of our sky and say "HAHA Skeptics I exist!". You act as if the skeptics are somehow foiling God's plans, when I believe they are very much a part of it. On the flip-side, once you take a leap of faith and begin to search for God, you can find Him everywhere. (notice how I just found God in the skeptics? Well it isn't quite as simple as that and it is a little hard to explain to someone who doesn't want to listen, I think all you want to do is let me say something so you can show me how I am wrong, but that isn't what I am trying to do here, I am not trying to prove anyone wrong, just trying to see if you can understand my logic)
I'm not sure who all caught it, but my point that a page of equations relating to the theory of relativity was a formal proof of the nonexistence of God was a spoof and a satire. I have said in other threads that it is impossible to prove that no god exists. I don't think it's impossible to prove that the Judeo-Chrisian-Muslim God does not exist because the concept of that character contradicts itself, but it is not possible to prove that the universe was not created by a conscious being. I think it is a profoundly far fetched concept, but nobody can conclusively prove that it is false. The page of equations was not a step by step proof, and those equations are way over the heads of non-physicists, so my posting of the page was a spoof on the idea of proving the nonexistence of God. Then I said that nobody can explain how the page does not prove the existence of God, which illustrates this point...
... and I also said that anybody who has questions should refer to the page, which is so much like the responses I have gotten here where people have told me to read the Bible to find the answers to the questions I am asking them. I can't believe anybody took me seriously on it, but I couldn't resist riding it out for a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethen
ohh, sneaky sneaky :D
I thought you had said something like that in the beginning, or maybe in a different thread somewhere. But you'd be suprised by some of the arguments I have come across in the past. I actually thought you were being serious :P
Too bad you admitted to the joke; should I explain the equations and show why they have nothing to do with the topic anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria