Religion, Darwinism, Creationism and cu20052003ism

[PKFFW]

Dawkins does his research and analyses the facts and the evidence, he's not 'closed minded' at all, he just goes with the facts and what the research suggests, he is a scientist afterall, this is what scientist's do, they go with logic and facts based on tests and research.

Uh not quite.

He researches, analyses and all that yes. He then draws a conclusion that is simply not supported by any evidence. Note, he does not claim to be agnostic. He claims to be an aethiest. He claims there is no God. That is the conclusion that is simply not supported by any evidence at present.

Sure, from an "odds" point of view I guess you could argue it is a reasonable conclusion. That doesn't change the fact that it is not supported by evidence.

It's funny that he classifies those who believe in God as delusional because they believe something that is not supported by scientific evidence. He then takes a position that is just as unsupported. So I guess by his own reasoning he should class himself as delusional.

Yes you're right science has not proven how it all started but it is getting closer every minute. At least it offers a logical proposal of it all.

The 'supreme being' idea may be right but there just isn't any evidence to even think about this, possibly just a book with a few good stories. Science and scientists cannot possibly go with such little evidence, they are here to prove things behond reasonable doubt. If a true scientist finds evidence that suggests a supreme being then he would submit that evidence and express that the odds are with a supremem being but this is not the case.

I agree with everything here except the last bit.

If any evidence of the existence of God was found scientists would not express that the odds are with a superman they would simply take the stance that science can not currently explain the evidence but that it does not prove the existence of God.

Just as Religion can not allow the idea there is no God, science can not allow the idea there is a God.

How can you say 'To suggest that god is a delusion is just as unsupported by evidence as to suggest he exists' when there is absolutely no evidence at all to suggest that a God does exist ? At least evolution has some substance, some evidence, evolution ideas are far more feasible than a supreme being (based on evidence).

I agree that evolution has substance and evidence backing it up. I have never suggested otherwise. In fact I have specifically said I believe evolution is how life came into being.

However, I can say what I said because there simply isn't any proof.

For example the idea that evolution proves there is no God would be akin to saying that if I can rationally explain the process by which a car is built that explanation constitutes proof that the car was not created by an intelligent being. On top of that you have to contend with the fact that evolution and science in general can not currently explain how the universe came into being in the first place. So in essence it is more like saying that if I can tell you how the shell of the car is built but am unable to explain the rest of it my half explaination constitutes proof that it sprang into being by chance.

I totally agree that everything after the big bang needed to produce life could have happened by chance. Even that though does not discount the existence of God. Just because something could happen by chance does not constitute proof that it did happen by chance. And again you have the problem of what came before the big bang?

It never ceases to amaze me that sane, intelligent people believe a book of nice stories and contradictive ideals than believe the possibility based on research and evidence that evolution ideas have a far higher probabilty of being true.

Two things.........
1: It never ceases to amaze me that people who choose not to believe in God always end up questioning the sanity and intelligence of those who do.
2: As I mentioned in my reply to n_t, faith, by its definition, picks up where science, evidence, proof, logical reasoning and all the rest of it leaves off.

Einstein himself believed in a Supreme Creator of some sort. Would you suggest he wasn't sane or intelligent?

Yes, no one can be 100% right but no one can be 100% right that the earth will continue to rotate tomorrow but the odds are in our favour based on the knowledge we have today that it will rotate tomorrow. We have more knowledge now than we did hundreds/thousands of years ago and we can now live with that knowledge.

Yep I agree the odds favour the idea that it all happened by random chance.

Any good scientist will tell you that having "good odds of this or that idea being true" doesn't actually conform to the definiton of evidence that the idea is true.

I think someone else posted that the only reason religion/god exists is because it helps us get through the idea of death. We don't know about death and the unknown scares us, religion/god provides the answer and a conclusion. It's very nicey, nicey and if you get comfort from it then that's okay but don't ever suggest that it has any evidence that it is the truth.

Why people choose to believe in God really doesn't matter one way or the other. It is a very convenient way of dismissing the notion of God if you can suggest the only reason people choose to believe in a God is because they are afraid of death. However, once again, distilling the entire thing down into a convenient dismissal doesn't actually constitute proof there is no God.

The 'Thank God' phrase has as much substance to it as 'May The Force Be With You' (Star Wars for those who are too young to remember ) and I have no problem whichever suits your way of thinking. The point I'm making is that although one is a film and one is a book, and if we discovered either of them in in book format 100's of years ago none would be more believable than the other.

Maybe a crap analogy but just my opinion of course......

Yep neither phrase has any significance or substance from a scientific viewpoint. Being a fan of Star Wars I actually prefer "may the force be with you" but only amongst friends and only as a bit of a joke.

However, for those who choose to have faith in God "thank god" has alot of significance.

Now Darwin is an evidence man, he goes out and investigates and then draws his conclusion on what he finds. Quite a normal thing to do for a guy who has intelligence, in fact quite normal thing for anyone with any inclination.

Yep and Darwin only drew conclusions that were supported by the evidence. He claimed to be agnostic because he realised there was no evidence supporting the existence of a God but at the same time there was actually no evidence that directly refuted the existence of God either.

Dawkins on the other hand has drawn a conclusion unsupported by any evidence based solely on his belief that, as you say, the "odds favour there being no God".

Harry Potter is a wonderful story and yes it would be wonderful to believe that such magic exists. But we all know that the odds are against it being true, it's minutely possible and there's no real evidence but really we know it's not feasible.

But if you're into magic and you cannot imagine life without magic then it suddenly becomes a possibility.

Great story.

As for magic.........cutting edge scientific research(whether temptrader wants to admit it or not) is pointing to the idea that all matter is actually energy. Manipulate that energy and you manipulate the matter. Who is to say we wont one day find a way to manipulate the energy so as to be able to change lead into gold or perform any other bit of "magic".

As another author once wrote......."there is no magic, it's all just tricks".

As long as we're happy and we don't hurt anyone then believe what you want, just don't accuse another belief of being wrong without any logical alternative.

I would go one step further........don't accuse another belief of being wrong unless you have proof it is wrong.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[temptrader]

I don't understand what good are prime numbers to someone who uses HEX? Can you have negative HEX numbers? In which case what good is zero?

The point is that the aliens could adopt Hex instead of base 10. Primes are the same primes regardless of number base, this means for mathematical advancement the alien race will also have to study the primes since a lot of deep mathematical theorems are dependent on the primes. And yes, you can have a negative base too, and you will need get your zero, and the zero is the same, regardless of base. All that can be elementarily deduced.

You talking tosh now. Absolute rubbish. Black hole is so large even light can't escape it's gravity. Show me the proof and what do you base this on.

Where I put experimental I meant observational. You may not be able to "see" a black hole, but you can see its "effects" by getting a distorted picture of stuff around it and these give you the clues to its the vicinity. Also you can do calculations about the forces around it, but not at the point of singularity - it all gets technical here. . .

Look TempTrader you are obviously a very bright guy. Can you not see that zero represents something that does not exist.

No, it's that you are having problems with what I'm trying to tell you, and you mix it up with your convictions about a God that logic does not care about. Actually zero does not mean "nothing", in mathematics the empty set means nothing and that is something completely different from zero. But it appears no matter what I try to say to you, you don't seem to understand that one requires a construction that we can work with, and the result/consequence of this construction, whether it be nothing, zero or one, does not necessitate the need for a God to put it there.

If you and I play a game of chess we accept the rules of the games without question. They are called the axioms. Zero just so appears to be one of the axioms, like the number one. It's a logic construct, just like and AND, NOR, OR gate in logic.

So I ask you again, how does the "existence" of a zero element necessitate the need for an existence of a God - or are you making a different point?

By virtue of definition nothing and zero don't exist. So for you to labour the point they do means you are in denial.

Denial about what? What definition? We can define "nothing" (the NULL set in set theory), just as we can define "zero" (identity element under the additive operation). But we can never define "God" in a formalized logical setting - we'll just get emotional people arguing over what they think "God" means/does/is capable of. Whose in denial now?

Why do you feel so threatened by my simple approach to attribute to a Godly supreme creator all those things science has not explained which I find comfort in.

I am not actually threatened by your beliefs because to me they are laughable - sorry. But I am scared of your thought processes that got you to want to believe in stuff like that, that I find scary. Because now I'm beginning to see, if you pardon me, exactly what the general population is like.

Finding comfort in something does not mean it's true. That's just an emotional reaction. It's not anyone's place to tell another how to feel - individuals can manage that by themselves.

 

[Atilla]

The point is that the aliens could adopt Hex instead of base 10. Primes are the same primes regardless of number base, this means for mathematical advancement the alien race will also have to study the primes since a lot of deep mathematical theorems are dependent on the primes. And yes, you can have a negative base too, and you will need get your zero, and the zero is the same, regardless of base. All that can be elementarily deduced.



Where I put experimental I meant observational. You may not be able to "see" a black hole, but you can see its "effects" by getting a distorted picture of stuff around it and these give you the clues to its the vicinity. Also you can do calculations about the forces around it, but not at the point of singularity - it all gets technical here. . .



No, it's that you are having problems with what I'm trying to tell you, and you mix it up with your convictions about a God that logic does not care about. Actually zero does not mean "nothing", in mathematics the empty set means nothing and that is something completely different from zero. But it appears no matter what I try to say to you, you don't seem to understand that one requires a construction that we can work with, and the result/consequence of this construction, whether it be nothing, zero or one, does not necessitate the need for a God to put it there.

If you and I play a game of chess we accept the rules of the games without question. They are called the axioms. Zero just so appears to be one of the axioms, like the number one. It's a logic construct, just like and AND, NOR, OR gate in logic.

So I ask you again, how does the "existence" of a zero element necessitate the need for an existence of a God - or are you making a different point?



Denial about what? What definition? We can define "nothing" (the NULL set in set theory), just as we can define "zero" (identity element under the additive operation). But we can never define "God" in a formalized logical setting - we'll just get emotional people arguing over what they think "God" means/does/is capable of. Whose in denial now?



I am not actually threatened by your beliefs because to me they are laughable - sorry. But I am scared of your thought processes that got you to want to believe in stuff like that, that I find scary. Because now I'm beginning to see, if you pardon me, exactly what the general population is like.

Finding comfort in something does not mean it's true. That's just an emotional reaction. It's not anyone's place to tell another how to feel - individuals can manage that by themselves.

I think we will have the mutually disagree TempTrader. I've made my points as best I can. Nothing more to add.

Perhaps if we take the view we have some understanding of each others mindsets as a gain we can both walk away with some additional grey matter. :cheers:

 

[Splitlink]

Do we? Can you prove that? If not, then why say it? Would you like a shouting match with someone who believes otherwise and is in the same psychological state of mind? How about a whole group of individuals just as "f*cked" up in the head and deluded, because there's an endless supply of them it seems. They all THINK with their feelings and never cold hard logic.

Like in that Dawkins clip, there are an INFINITE possibility for a God or Gods that we can come up with that science cannot say neither here or there about. As a banned poster here once said: If it weren't so serious, it would be funny.

It's a big step from saying that man is slowly unlocking God's secrets (which God allows Man to do) to saying God does not exist.

But, for me, enough is enough. There is a lot of suffering in the world for a scientist to resolve. If he does it, it won't matter whether he believes, or not. He'll be forgiven that. That's why I believe that all this debating is a waste of energy. What does it matter to you or I what we, each, believe?

Split

 

[yacarob1]

It's a big step from saying that man is slowly unlocking God's secrets (which God allows Man to do) to saying God does not exist.

Is that Man United or Man City ?

 

[cofton]

Quote 'Faith is a personal choice and by its definition picks up where logic, reasoning,
evidence and proof leaves off'

Well that's a very convenient statement and it's one that many relgious people use when
they have no rational explanation. You can use that statement for anything that you can't prove or for anything
you simply disbelieve but it just isn't an answer, it's really just a cop out.

So when logic, reasoning and evidence doesn't conform to your beliefs you can then use the same
statement, as I said it's very convenient and many clergymen and evangilists use this same statement
when they are stumped for an answer.

Dawkins is an athiest because all the evidence points to there being no God and yes it is an odds
things and this is all we have to go by, like many other things in life.

You're right religion cannot allow the the idea of no God but you'are wrong that science cannot allow
the idea of a God. Science CAN allow the idea of God but with some kind of evidence, some kind
of proof, some kind of logic, some kind of reasoning but of course there is none of these.
Therefore, quite rightly scientists conclude that until some evidence suggests the possibility then there can be no God.
Quite a rational decision based on there being not one shred of evidence except for a few books
and someone's faith.

It seems that you agree with evolution theories and you also believe in God and there is nothing
wrong with that. Your logic and reasoning tells you evolution is a sensible and rational theory and
your faith tells you that the God belief is comforting. Your logic is evidential and your faith is comforting
but can never be proven.

I have never said that people who believe in God are not sane or intelligent, I just said that it
surprises me that generallty people live there lives by logic and sensible reasoning and evidence but
when it comes to God and/or relgion all their logic and reasoning suddenly goes out the window.
I find this very strange.. If you said that these same people actually believed in Harry Potter or Star Wars
then they would be ridiculed and laughed at because we live in a cruel world. But because they believe
in something like the bible and it's stories then it's fine, sorry I just don't get it.

I think if you try to be totally honest you will agree that people believe in God largely because
they are afraid of death and this is quite acceptable. There's nothing wrong with this as you could
argue that it's in our makeup as human beings, it's our survival mechanism. We don't understand death
and it is frightening so we build a safety mechanism in the form of God/heaven. Makes life a little
easier and the big fat cats can then capitalise on this and they gain power and control (but that's another story).

'for those who choose to have faith in God "thank god" has alot of significance'

Why ? Thanking God even if he were true has not any significance in our daily life in my opinion.
Everything that happens is by cause and effect. I have never seen any action by God in our daily life,
we as humans make things happen. I have never seen evidence of a God changing anything, he's never stopped a war,
a killing, a rape, a famine, an earthquake, child abuse, a murder, a fight. And by the same token he
has never created a war (not directly any way), he's never given to charity, never created a fight,
a war, a rape, a killing etc etc Man does all these things so why thank God for anything.
Yes, thank your faith if you have one if you wish, faith is your own personal thing and it can be
powerful in what you do. If there is a God then I think he will have power in the after life but
certainly not here on earth.

I think really we can only go by the evidence and lack of it where appropriate so we do go by the
odds and the odds are definitely against there being a God. Nothing wrong in having a belief and
if it helps you and gets you throught he night then that is okay.
As far as proof, evidence and logic then God is not an option for me but I do like the idea of something after
we leave this planet, feels more comforting than being nothing afterwards !

Be happy

Cofton

Uh not quite.

He researches, analyses and all that yes. He then draws a conclusion that is simply not supported by any evidence. Note, he does not claim to be agnostic. He claims to be an aethiest. He claims there is no God. That is the conclusion that is simply not supported by any evidence at present.

Sure, from an "odds" point of view I guess you could argue it is a reasonable conclusion. That doesn't change the fact that it is not supported by evidence.

It's funny that he classifies those who believe in God as delusional because they believe something that is not supported by scientific evidence. He then takes a position that is just as unsupported. So I guess by his own reasoning he should class himself as delusional.

I agree with everything here except the last bit.

If any evidence of the existence of God was found scientists would not express that the odds are with a superman they would simply take the stance that science can not currently explain the evidence but that it does not prove the existence of God.

Just as Religion can not allow the idea there is no God, science can not allow the idea there is a God.

I agree that evolution has substance and evidence backing it up. I have never suggested otherwise. In fact I have specifically said I believe evolution is how life came into being.

However, I can say what I said because there simply isn't any proof.

For example the idea that evolution proves there is no God would be akin to saying that if I can rationally explain the process by which a car is built that explanation constitutes proof that the car was not created by an intelligent being. On top of that you have to contend with the fact that evolution and science in general can not currently explain how the universe came into being in the first place. So in essence it is more like saying that if I can tell you how the shell of the car is built but am unable to explain the rest of it my half explaination constitutes proof that it sprang into being by chance.

I totally agree that everything after the big bang needed to produce life could have happened by chance. Even that though does not discount the existence of God. Just because something could happen by chance does not constitute proof that it did happen by chance. And again you have the problem of what came before the big bang?

Two things.........
1: It never ceases to amaze me that people who choose not to believe in God always end up questioning the sanity and intelligence of those who do.
2: As I mentioned in my reply to n_t, faith, by its definition, picks up where science, evidence, proof, logical reasoning and all the rest of it leaves off.

Einstein himself believed in a Supreme Creator of some sort. Would you suggest he wasn't sane or intelligent?

Yep I agree the odds favour the idea that it all happened by random chance.

Any good scientist will tell you that having "good odds of this or that idea being true" doesn't actually conform to the definiton of evidence that the idea is true.

Why people choose to believe in God really doesn't matter one way or the other. It is a very convenient way of dismissing the notion of God if you can suggest the only reason people choose to believe in a God is because they are afraid of death. However, once again, distilling the entire thing down into a convenient dismissal doesn't actually constitute proof there is no God.

Yep neither phrase has any significance or substance from a scientific viewpoint. Being a fan of Star Wars I actually prefer "may the force be with you" but only amongst friends and only as a bit of a joke.

However, for those who choose to have faith in God "thank god" has alot of significance.

Yep and Darwin only drew conclusions that were supported by the evidence. He claimed to be agnostic because he realised there was no evidence supporting the existence of a God but at the same time there was actually no evidence that directly refuted the existence of God either.

Dawkins on the other hand has drawn a conclusion unsupported by any evidence based solely on his belief that, as you say, the "odds favour there being no God".

Great story.

As for magic.........cutting edge scientific research(whether temptrader wants to admit it or not) is pointing to the idea that all matter is actually energy. Manipulate that energy and you manipulate the matter. Who is to say we wont one day find a way to manipulate the energy so as to be able to change lead into gold or perform any other bit of "magic".

As another author once wrote......."there is no magic, it's all just tricks".

I would go one step further........don't accuse another belief of being wrong unless you have proof it is wrong.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[Splitlink]

Is that Man United or Man City ?

That's what comes of talking about religion and football on a Thursday morning!

Do you think that Evolutionists would get your joke?

Split

 

[yacarob1]

Do you think that Evolutionists would get your joke?

Joke ? What joke ?

It's a serious question.

 

[new_trader]

As temptrader has pointed out, and I agree, the existence of God is not currently an issue of science. It is a thing science can not hope to fathom at this stage. So why use a scientific tool? Totally unprofessional!

Faith is a personal choice and by its definition picks up where logic, reasoning, evidence and proof leaves off. Do you see or don't you see?

Cheers,
PKFFW

The fact that you use terms like "the existence of God not currently an issue of science." means you still just don't get it. Is the tooth fairy an issue of science? Is Santa Claus and issue of science? Goblins? Dracula? The Boogey man? Gremlins, Fairies?
Are they issues of science? Do you have faith in their existance?

"It is a thing science can not hope to fathom at this stage"

Why should science ever have to fathom it? Do you believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus? Did science do anything to prove their existence or lack of? Do you understand the meaning of consistency of thought? Logic, inference?

If there is a God, do you think s/he is just sitting around hoping that science doesn't eventually fathom him or her out?

You keep bringing science into it as if it is role of science to dispel idiotic beliefs. That ISN'T the role of science. Science just explains how things work and uses observation and experiment to back it up. If faith is a personal choice then there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING science will ever be able to do to alter it, do you see? Never, so please, stop making ludicrous comments like "It is a thing science can not hope to fathom at this stage".

I don't give a flying frig what YOU believe or do not believe, just don't say that it is the role of science to change it.

 

[temptrader]

Faith is a personal choice and by its definition picks up where logic, reasoning, evidence and proof leaves off. Do you see or don't you see?

Cheers,
PKFFW

WTF? "picks up where logic, reasoning, evidence and proof leaves off"? Are you high on drugs at the moment? Would you like to see a therapist concerning your condition because to me it appears to be deteriorating FAST.

I know where you were going with your stance. But think about this: if we all got people together to talk about their God etc . . . there would be no consistency, it would just end up in a shouting match. What does that tell you? Do you see, or not see what I'm getting at? I find it brutally arrogant that members of one religious faith believes those of different religious faith have got it wrong - and vice versa. And since "God" is not around to settle the dispute, they try to settle it amongst themselves with comical, tedious, laughable results - some bordering on the tragic. Beneath their "universal love of mankind" is their smug belief that theirs is the only real God and the others are flawed. And when they argue against each other, none have any evidence for their beliefs apart from "I believe it be so, because such and such a book told me so".

Religion is not particularly old, probably only a few thousand years at most. This begs the question what was happening to our ancestors before religion, and the answer is that they still got by, did not think about it, hence did not care about it, and ultimately were not even aware of it and had no "need" for it, until the idea of it spread like a horrible virus infecting mankind's psych.

 

[JTrader]

Jesus! you guys r deep into' philosophy mumbo jumbo, clear as mud, smokescreens, your mothers a lesbian, no shes not she just dont like men type debating - innit?

 

[temptrader]

I think we will have the mutually disagree TempTrader. I've made my points as best I can. Nothing more to add.

Perhaps if we take the view we have some understanding of each others mindsets as a gain we can both walk away with some additional grey matter. :cheers:

The father of Set Theory, Georg Cantor, once said - or something along those lines - that it was more important to DEFINE a question properly than solving problems. His Set Theory was attacked by Kronecker (who is attributed with a famous saying: "God made the integers, all the rest is the work of man") so vehemently that it compounded his already fragile mental state that it lead to Cantor ending his life in a mental asylum. This is a shame, because PKFFW and Firewalker99 should be there too. . . .

You have not walked away with extra grey matter. All you walk away with is smug belief and not knowing what it is you are on about (no offence there).

"It is a thing science can not hope to fathom at this stage"

I know where this is getting. You are implying that what you believe could be right, it's just that science hasn't caught up with it yet. New_trader literally hit the nail in the head for you with his reply.

The whole world is full of people with idiotic beliefs. And some have technologically unfeasible beliefs (like if you were living in the 17th century and you believed you can split the atom). What would you have us do with such people?

Scientist are there to advance the frontiers of knowledge. We are NOT around to debate the unfalsifiable - nor do we care. "B*gger off" seems the most appropriate response, because the task of advancing the frontiers, or making new discoveries, is a LOT of work. For most it also painfully slow, with many false starts, blood, sweat and tears for sometimes meager gains. And all this done in a logically consistent framework of the field of study you are in - otherwise we can just talk any old crap (which is what the religious individuals are prone to doing).

 

[Atilla]

The father of Set Theory, Georg Cantor, once said - or something along those lines - that it was more important to DEFINE a question properly than solving problems. His Set Theory was attacked by Kronecker (who is attributed with a famous saying: "God made the integers, all the rest is the work of man") so vehemently that it compounded his already fragile mental state that it lead to Cantor ending his life in a mental asylum. This is a shame, because PKFFW and Firewalker99 should be there too. . . .
Don't know why you keep bringing Firewalker99 into this debate? I haven't seen him in this thread?
You have not walked away with extra grey matter. All you walk away with is smug belief and not knowing what it is you are on about (no offence there).

I feel I have walked away with extra gray matter. No offence taken. In fact right now I have a smile on my face as I find you reaction amusing. Call me stupid or simple if you must but that's me for you.

I know where this is getting. You are implying that what you believe could be right, it's just that science hasn't caught up with it yet. New_trader literally hit the nail in the head for you with his reply. I haven't implied anything. I've stated it in words. Maybe you are reading too much into my words. :whistling

The whole world is full of people with idiotic beliefs. And some have technologically unfeasible beliefs (like if you were living in the 17th century and you believed you can split the atom). What would you have us do with such people? You need your mind opened like they need theirs. A drill through the skull might help release some of those demons. :cheesy: Actually, I don't know what to do just jesting...

Scientist are there to advance the frontiers of knowledge. We are NOT around to debate the unfalsifiable - nor do we care. "B*gger off" seems the most appropriate response, because the task of advancing the frontiers, or making new discoveries, is a LOT of work. For most it also painfully slow, with many false starts, blood, sweat and tears for sometimes meager gains. And all this done in a logically consistent framework of the field of study you are in - otherwise we can just talk any old crap (which is what the religious individuals are prone to doing).

I've tried to keep my input to abstract zeros and nothings here and not touched on emoitions, feelings or faith at all. But you still seem to get worked up.

You are holding on too tight. Let it be and chill out. Allow expression. My faith has moved heaps and bounds. My world has been rocked. I follow no idiot lecturing me on God believe me. It is as said a personal appreciation of what God means to me.

I don't think you get it so that's it from me.

Enjoyable blog though.


PS Can we restrict write up on these blogs to short paragraphs please. We are not all PHd students here you know???

 

[cofton]

Here, here newtrader ! Spot on.

The fact that you use terms like "the existence of God not currently an issue of science." means you still just don't get it. Is the tooth fairy an issue of science? Is Santa Claus and issue of science? Goblins? Dracula? The Boogey man? Gremlins, Fairies?
Are they issues of science? Do you have faith in their existance?

"It is a thing science can not hope to fathom at this stage"

Why should science ever have to fathom it? Do you believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus? Did science do anything to prove their existence or lack of? Do you understand the meaning of consistency of thought? Logic, inference?

If there is a God, do you think s/he is just sitting around hoping that science doesn't eventually fathom him or her out?

You keep bringing science into it as if it is role of science to dispel idiotic beliefs. That ISN'T the role of science. Science just explains how things work and uses observation and experiment to back it up. If faith is a personal choice then there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING science will ever be able to do to alter it, do you see? Never, so please, stop making ludicrous comments like "It is a thing science can not hope to fathom at this stage".

I don't give a flying frig what YOU believe or do not believe, just don't say that it is the role of science to change it.

 

[cofton]

Brilliant response temptrader.

Bit strong on the 'horrible virus' analogy and infecting mankind's psych (but certainly close ).

I would prefer maybe a form of 'brainwashing' as this is what the fat cats do to gain their power and control and wealth.

I am particularly amused by the "picks up where logic, reasoning, evidence and proof leaves off"? - What an absurd statement !

And the person that posted this commented that he was surprised that I was amazed why sane, intelligent people believe in God/religion. With comments like the above it begs belief !

How can something that has no evidence whatsoever pick up from where logic, reasoning and proof leaves off ?? I see absolutely no common sense in this kind of statement and with lack of basic common sense it would suggest that delusion is the order of the day here.

Dawkins I think your case gets stronger by the second !

Be happy

Cofton

WTF? "picks up where logic, reasoning, evidence and proof leaves off"? Are you high on drugs at the moment? Would you like to see a therapist concerning your condition because to me it appears to be deteriorating FAST.

I know where you were going with your stance. But think about this: if we all got people together to talk about their God etc . . . there would be no consistency, it would just end up in a shouting match. What does that tell you? Do you see, or not see what I'm getting at? I find it brutally arrogant that members of one religious faith believes those of different religious faith have got it wrong - and vice versa. And since "God" is not around to settle the dispute, they try to settle it amongst themselves with comical, tedious, laughable results - some bordering on the tragic. Beneath their "universal love of mankind" is their smug belief that theirs is the only real God and the others are flawed. And when they argue against each other, none have any evidence for their beliefs apart from "I believe it be so, because such and such a book told me so".

Religion is not particularly old, probably only a few thousand years at most. This begs the question what was happening to our ancestors before religion, and the answer is that they still got by, did not think about it, hence did not care about it, and ultimately were not even aware of it and had no "need" for it, until the idea of it spread like a horrible virus infecting mankind's psych.

 

[temptrader]

Dawkins I think your case gets stronger by the second !

Regarding the religious texts let me make the point clear: The CASE was settled in 1859. In YOUR mind and present experience it seems that his case is getting stronger, but everything was basically settled in 1859. All that happened through the years was reinforcement and refinement of the field. There is NO case.

Darwin did not set out to disprove God. He set out to understand the process of evolution, worked it out sufficiently to a level that it fitted the evidence and formed a coherent theory, predictions can be made etc. . . and as a consequence this went into direct conflict with certain religious texts claiming this and that. That is where the trouble lies. That is why Darwin turned his back on the faith of his upbringing. That was HIS judgment call to make.

You are still free to believe in these religious texts if you want to - despite what they say is wrong. That's your choice. No one can force you otherwise. (Dawkin's book, which I have not read, just paints the whole absurdity of the situation.) And besides, I don't think there are shortages of bedspaces in lunatic asylums . . . .

 

[PKFFW]

Quote 'Faith is a personal choice and by its definition picks up where logic, reasoning,
evidence and proof leaves off'

Well that's a very convenient statement and it's one that many relgious people use when
they have no rational explanation. You can use that statement for anything that you can't prove or for anything you simply disbelieve but it just isn't an answer, it's really just a cop out.
So when logic, reasoning and evidence doesn't conform to your beliefs you can then use the same
statement, as I said it's very convenient and many clergymen and evangilists use this same statement
when they are stumped for an answer.

Since you, n_t and temptrader have made the same basic misunderstanding of the comment I will deal with that in another post.

Dawkins is an athiest because all the evidence points to there being no God and yes it is an odds things and this is all we have to go by, like many other things in life.

If you truly can not understand the concept that the idea of "the odds are in favour of xyz being correct" does not constitute proof that xyz is correct then there is no point discussing the issue further with you.

Even the idea that the odds favour there being no God is a bit laughable when you examine it further.

If I had to guess I would say humans now know less than 1/1000th of 1% of all the knowledge about the universe and how it was created. Probably far far far less than that. And yet you are ready to suggest the "odds favour" anything at all!

If you had 1 tick's worth of data for the last years worth of trading on which to base a trading decision would you feel confident of saying "the odds favour" whatever? I doubt it very much.

You're right religion cannot allow the the idea of no God but you'are wrong that science cannot allow
the idea of a God. Science CAN allow the idea of God but with some kind of evidence, some kind
of proof, some kind of logic, some kind of reasoning but of course there is none of these.
Therefore, quite rightly scientists conclude that until some evidence suggests the possibility then there can be no God.
Quite a rational decision based on there being not one shred of evidence except for a few books
and someone's faith.

Sorry but you are incorrect.

As you, n_t and temptrader have all pointed out, to invoke God in any scientific theory would have you laughed out of the scientific community and the door shut firmly behind you.

The existence of God, as you all have pointed out many times, is "unfalsifiable". Science does not deal with the unfalsifiable(and I'm not suggesting it should) and in fact simply wont work as a method for learning if it attempted to.

Hence it can not allow for the existence of a God. There is nothing wrong with that, it is simply a fact. As I said, I'm not suggesting science should deal with God. In fact I specifically stated the existence of God isn't a scientific issue at all.

As I said to temptrader if God were to come down to earth right now and perform any miracle any scientist asked for and provided any "evidence" they asked for the scientific community would simply take the stance that the miracles and evidence can not be explained but they do not prove the existence of God because God is an unfalsifiable concept.

If you disagree with that you are kidding yourself.

It seems that you agree with evolution theories and you also believe in God and there is nothing
wrong with that. Your logic and reasoning tells you evolution is a sensible and rational theory and
your faith tells you that the God belief is comforting. Your logic is evidential and your faith is comforting
but can never be proven.

I never said my faith could be proven. This goes to the fundamental misunderstanding that you three all make regarding my comment on faith.

I have never said that people who believe in God are not sane or intelligent, I just said that it
surprises me that generallty people live there lives by logic and sensible reasoning and evidence but
when it comes to God and/or relgion all their logic and reasoning suddenly goes out the window.
I find this very strange..

No you never did say that people who believe in God are not sane or intelligent, you merely implied it. Much better that way so you can always say "I never said that."

If you were not implying such why did you feel the need to single out "sane and intelligent"? Why not say "it amazes me that so many tall people believe in God" or "it amazes me that so many black people believe in God"?

I'll tell you why you singled out "sane and intelligent". Because by doing so you imply that a belief in God is an insane or unintelligent belief. As such anyone who believes in god you by default imply are either insane or unintelligent.

If you said that these same people actually believed in Harry Potter or Star Wars
then they would be ridiculed and laughed at because we live in a cruel world. But because they believe
in something like the bible and it's stories then it's fine, sorry I just don't get it.

Have you ever considered that people do not believe Harry Potter or Star Wars are real is because the author/creator of those two stated they were fiction?

To believe something is real when the very creator of that work claims it to be fiction would be illogical and laughable I totally agree. The very fact that the author of the work claims it is fiction should give one some idea that it is not real.

Now please note, I am not suggesting that if someone were to claim any old story they wrote is real that this constitutes proof that it is real. More about this part in my response to you all's misunderstanding of my comment on faith.

I think if you try to be totally honest you will agree that people believe in God largely because
they are afraid of death and this is quite acceptable. There's nothing wrong with this as you could
argue that it's in our makeup as human beings, it's our survival mechanism. We don't understand death
and it is frightening so we build a safety mechanism in the form of God/heaven. Makes life a little
easier and the big fat cats can then capitalise on this and they gain power and control (but that's another story).

Do you understand that why people believe in God has nothing to do with whether God exists or not. Again, if you truly do not understand this concept then there is no point discussing the issue any further.

'for those who choose to have faith in God "thank god" has alot of significance'

Why ? Thanking God even if he were true has not any significance in our daily life in my opinion.
Everything that happens is by cause and effect. I have never seen any action by God in our daily life,
we as humans make things happen. I have never seen evidence of a God changing anything, he's never stopped a war,
a killing, a rape, a famine, an earthquake, child abuse, a murder, a fight. And by the same token he
has never created a war (not directly any way), he's never given to charity, never created a fight,
a war, a rape, a killing etc etc Man does all these things so why thank God for anything.
Yes, thank your faith if you have one if you wish, faith is your own personal thing and it can be
powerful in what you do. If there is a God then I think he will have power in the after life but
certainly not here on earth.

You do not believe in God and as such you do not believe God has ever done any of those things.

Some people who do believe in God believe that through the creation of the universe God has had a hand in everything that has happened and as such thanks is due. This is why I say that to those people the term "thank God" does have significance.

That you disagree does not mean the term has no substance it only means the term has no substance to you personally.

For the record personally I do not accept that philosophy.

I think really we can only go by the evidence and lack of it where appropriate so we do go by the
odds and the odds are definitely against there being a God.

See my earlier point about odds. What you think personally does not constitute proof one way or the other.

Nothing wrong in having a belief and if it helps you and gets you throught he night then that is okay.
As far as proof, evidence and logic then God is not an option for me but I do like the idea of something after
we leave this planet, feels more comforting than being nothing afterwards !

Yes to each his own.

Cheers
PKFFW

 

[PKFFW]

The fact that you use terms like "the existence of God not currently an issue of science." means you still just don't get it. Is the tooth fairy an issue of science? Is Santa Claus and issue of science? Goblins? Dracula? The Boogey man? Gremlins, Fairies?
Are they issues of science? Do you have faith in their existance?

No I do not have faith in their existance. No they are not issues of science.

Now see if you can follow me here n_t..........

Just because you personally have no faith in something does not mean that every scientist on earth or who will ever be on earth has no faith in that thing Do you see or not see?

Still with me or should I use smaller words?

Now, at present our understanding and technology can't deal with this unfalsifiable concept of God and so there is no way any scientist can deal with the issue of God.

Now don't get lost here.........

In time our knowledge and technology may change and we may very well be able to deal with the issue of the existence of God. In ancient times the existence of atoms was an unfalsifiable concept as well. It isn't any longer.

Now here's where it gets a bit tricky for simpletons but if you concentrate I'm sure you will get it..........

If there are scientists who believe in God and if our technology and understanding of the universe ever reaches a stage where the existence of God is something that can be conclusively proven one way or the other, then the existence of God will become a scientific issue.

The fact that you obviously disagree with this doesn't mean it isn't so.

"It is a thing science can not hope to fathom at this stage"

Why should science ever have to fathom it? Do you believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus? Did science do anything to prove their existence or lack of? Do you understand the meaning of consistency of thought? Logic, inference?

Please point out where I said science should ever have to fathom it? I never said that science has to do anything.

As for Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, these two concepts were never said to be real. They are both fictional stories invented to amuse children. As no one has ever been claiming they are real then why should science set out to prove they are not real?

Now before you bring up other things...........

Goblins, vampires, werewolves, boogey men etc etc etc etc etc...........are all concepts invented to explain natural phenomenon feared by man. All natural "monsters" are. People die in strange circumstances and other people make up stories based on half seen creatures in the night or based on the type of injuries etc etc etc. Yes they claim these creatures are real. Science has since shown that these deaths and accidents can be attributed to natural causes and as such we no longer believe in these monsters.

Science has not explained everything there is to know about the universe yet and as such the belief in a God poses no problem to "consitency of thought". Again this goes to you three's misunderstanding of my remark on faith and as such I will deal more with it later.

If there is a God, do you think s/he is just sitting around hoping that science doesn't eventually fathom him or her out?

Why would he/she be sitting around thinking that? Why would he/she care one way or the other?

You keep bringing science into it as if it is role of science to dispel idiotic beliefs. That ISN'T the role of science. Science just explains how things work and uses observation and experiment to back it up.

Never said it was the role of science to dispel beliefs. That is your own interpretation of my remarks.

If faith is a personal choice then there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING science will ever be able to do to alter it, do you see? Never, so please, stop making ludicrous comments like "It is a thing science can not hope to fathom at this stage".

You statement seems to suggest that you confuse the ability of science to alter the fact that faith is a choice with sciences ability to change what people have faith in. Do you see the difference or do you not see?

You are right that there is nothing science can do to alter the fact that faith is a personal choice. Just like science can't alter the fact that what you have for breakfast is your own personal choice.

What science can do is what it has always done, continue to show how things work. For example when science showed that the sun wasn't Apollo dragging his fiery chariot across the sky then the last remaining people who may have still believed it was, no longer had faith in that idea. Science had proven otherwise.

Was it science's goal to disprove the Apollo idea? No. It was simply showing how things worked and in so doing changed what people believe.

I don't give a flying frig what YOU believe or do not believe, just don't say that it is the role of science to change it.

Please show me where I ever said it was the role of science to change what I believe?

As I said above science can and does show how things work all the time. In doing so it can and does change what people believe as a by product.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[PKFFW]

WTF? "picks up where logic, reasoning, evidence and proof leaves off"? Are you high on drugs at the moment? Would you like to see a therapist concerning your condition because to me it appears to be deteriorating FAST.

Is this another example of you arguing your point from logic and reasoning and not from emotions?

I know where you were going with your stance. But think about this: if we all got people together to talk about their God etc . . . there would be no consistency, it would just end up in a shouting match. What does that tell you? Do you see, or not see what I'm getting at? I find it brutally arrogant that members of one religious faith believes those of different religious faith have got it wrong - and vice versa. And since "God" is not around to settle the dispute, they try to settle it amongst themselves with comical, tedious, laughable results - some bordering on the tragic. Beneath their "universal love of mankind" is their smug belief that theirs is the only real God and the others are flawed. And when they argue against each other, none have any evidence for their beliefs apart from "I believe it be so, because such and such a book told me so".

You clearly do not understand where I was going with my point. You, cofton and n_t have taken my meaning to be something it is not. Perhaps that is my fault for not more clearly explaining what I meant. However I'm more inclined to believe you have all intentionally misunderstood my point because it suits your arguments to do so. More later.

Religion is not particularly old, probably only a few thousand years at most. This begs the question what was happening to our ancestors before religion, and the answer is that they still got by, did not think about it, hence did not care about it, and ultimately were not even aware of it and had no "need" for it, until the idea of it spread like a horrible virus infecting mankind's psych.

Actually you are just plain wrong here.

The earliest recorded drawings and paintings by Aboriginals in Australia date back 20,000 years or so and many of them have to do with the Aboriginal faith.

Even if you meant 20,000 years when you said "a few thousand years ago" there is a very good reason why this would be the case.

Before that time humans were thinking only about survival and not questioning their surroundings and how they came to be at all. So as such of course the idea of a God or any other explaination for the physical world would not have come up.

Science has only been around a few hundred years. Humans got along just fine without it before that and never even knew they needed it. By your logic should we assume science is bogus?

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[PKFFW]

Regarding the religious texts let me make the point clear: The CASE was settled in 1859. In YOUR mind and present experience it seems that his case is getting stronger, but everything was basically settled in 1859. All that happened through the years was reinforcement and refinement of the field. There is NO case.

I'm sorry but you are simply incorrect here.

I agree that the theory of evolution clearly explains the mechanism by which life came to exist in the universe. That is all it does though.

It does not explain how the universe came into existence. It does not explain what caused the big bang or many small bangs depending on which theory you belive in. It does not explain what existed before this physical realm came into existence. It doesn not even conclusively prove that the process of evolution was not started by some "God".

As such it does not conclusively prove that some mechanism other than a "God" created this universe.

Nothing in science does. And no amount of harping about odds constitutes proof.

Cheers,
PKFFW